IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Patent Trial & Appeal Board
Subscribe to Patent Trial & Appeal Board's Posts

When Is It Really Over? If Additional Proceedings Are Needed, Judgment Is Not Final

by | May 16, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, factually distinguishing the concept of finality in this case from its earlier decision in Fresenius USA v. Baxter Int’l, vacated and remanded a district court’s amended final judgment with instructions to dismiss the case as moot in view of parallel proceedings that had found all patent claims invalid. Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., Case No. 22-2064 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) (Lourie, Hughes, Stark, JJ.)

This dispute was originally before the Federal Circuit in 2020 when NetScout appealed a district court’s judgment that it willfully infringed multiple patents and that none of the patent claims were shown to be unpatentable or invalid. NetScout also appealed the district court’s damages award, which included enhancements. In the first appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the damages award, vacated the enhanced damages and affirmed the remainder of the decision (Packet I). While the case was on remand to the district court, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board issued final written decisions in a series of inter partes reviews (IPRs) that had been initiated by third parties, finding all claims to be unpatentable as obvious. Packet appealed the Board’s decisions to the Federal Circuit. The district court issued an amended decision on May 4, 2022, after the Federal Circuit’s first decision remanding the case and after the Board’s final written decisions in the IPRs.

NetScout appealed again, arguing that if the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s findings invalidating the patents at issue, then the claims at issue in the litigation would all be unpatentable, which would trigger an immediate issue preclusion that would leave Packet unable to collect on any outstanding monetary damages awarded by the district court. Therefore, the question before the Federal Circuit was whether the decision in Packet I rendered the case sufficiently final such that it would be immune to the Board’s subsequent determination of unpatentability.

The Federal Circuit determined that Packet’s infringement judgment was not final before the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s unpatentability judgments. The Court discussed its prior decisions on finality, focusing on its 2013 decision in Fresenius in which the Court considered a different concept of finality. In Fresenius, the Court explained that the finality at issue was not the potential res judicata effect on another litigation. Rather, Fresenius was concerned with “whether the judgment in this infringement case is sufficiently final so that it is immune to the effect of the final judgment in the PTO proceedings, as affirmed by this court.” The Federal Circuit stated that in accordance with this concept of finality (also the one at issue in NetScout’s appeal), a litigation is sufficiently final when it is “entirely concluded” so that the cause of action is merged into a final judgment and the final judgment leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.

Applying this standard to the facts of the case at issue, the Federal Circuit found that Packet’s cause of action remained pending and [...]

Continue Reading



read more

How Close Are They? PTO Looking for “Significant Relationship” Between Sequential IPR Petitioners

by | May 9, 2024 |

Addressing the issue of whether to discretionally deny a petition for inter partes review (IPR) under the General Plastics factors when there is no “significant relationship” between the petitioners, the Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s decision denying institution. Videndum Prod. Sol., Inc. v. Rotolight Ltd., IPR2023-01218 (PTO-Ofc. of Dir., Apr. 19, 2024) (Vidal, PTO Dir.)

Videndum filed a petition requesting IPR challenging claims of a patent owned by Rotolight. In its Patent Owner’s Response, Rotolight argued to the Board that it should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), citing the Board’s 2017 precedential decision in General Plastic. Prior to Videndum’s petition, the Board instituted review of the same patent at the request of another party. However, one month prior to oral argument in that proceeding, the parties to that IPR proceeding jointly moved to terminate the proceeding on the basis of a settlement. The Board granted the parties’ joint petition.

In the present case, a split Board denied Videndum’s petition for institution, reasoning that Videndum’s petition was a “follow on” of the prior proceeding, and citied General Plastic even while conceding that the “Petitioner’s reliance on [the] earlier-filed petition …, even ‘as a menu and roadmap’” is not sufficient “to create ‘a significant relationship’ that favors denial under the first General Plastic factor.” The dissent agreed on that point but argued that the “General Plastic factors as whole weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution.”

Videndum requested Director review of the Board’s denial of institution based on an abuse of discretion argument. The Director granted review.

The Director found error with the Board’s application of the General Plastic factors in situations where the second-in-time petition is not by the same party that filed the first petition or by a party having a “significant relationship” with the first filer.

The General Plastic factors generally deal with how the Board should analyze whether to institute a subsequent petition on the same patent. Factor one explicitly asks whether the two petitioners are the same. However, the application of the General Plastic factors “is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner.” But, when the factors are applied to different petitioners, they have been applied to petitioners who have a “significant relationship” with each other.

Here, both the parties and the Board agreed that there is not a “significant relationship” between the two petitioners. As the Director noted, the PTO has never extended the General Plastic factors “to any cases in which the first and second petitioners do not have a significant relationship.” The Director found the Board’s unprecedented extension of the General Plastics factors to be “improper[],” vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded the case with an instruction to the Board majority to “address the merits of the Petition.”

Practice Note: Patent owners fighting institution of an IPR by a subsequent petitioner should allege facts emphasizing the relationship between the two [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Clean Up on Aisle PTAB: Clarification of Discretionary Denial Practice

by | May 2, 2024 |

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, seeking to codify existing precedent and guidance regarding the Board’s discretionary considerations in denying IPR or PGR petitions. 89 Fed. Reg. 28693 (Apr. 19, 2024).

The NPRM follows a 2020 request for comments and an April 2023 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that the PTO had hoped to finalize in terms of rulemaking by fall 2023. However, proposals in the ANPR hit a snag following criticism from Congress and more than 14,500 comments from stakeholders and the public, including charges that the PTO Director was overstepping her authority.

The newly proposed rules address:

  • Briefing on motions for discretionary denial
  • Factors for discretionary denial
  • Termination and settlement agreements

Briefing on Motions for Discretionary Denial

A significant aspect of the proposal provides for a separate briefing schedule between a patent owner’s preliminary response (POPR) and a request for discretionary denial, which must be filed no later than one month prior to the deadline for the POPR for briefing on its merits. Under the proposal, the discretionary denial arguments would be excluded from the preliminary response unless otherwise authorized by the Board and are intended to avoid encroaching on the wordcount limits for briefing on the merits. Under the proposed briefing process, there would be a 10-page limit for a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial and for the petitioner opposition, and a five-page limit for the patent owner’s sur-reply.

Factors for Discretionary Denial

The proposed rules address denial of institution for “parallel petitions” or “serial petitions” to provide a framework for considering whether previously presented art or arguments provide grounds for denial. The proposed rules also address treatment of joinder petitions, particularly in relation to already instituted petitions. Parallel petitions are defined in the proposed rule as two or more petitions by the same petitioner challenging the same patent that are filed on or before the filing of a POPR to any of the petitions or on or before the due date for filing a POPR to the first petition. Serial petitions are defined as challenged claims of the same patent overlapping with those in a previously filed petition for IPR, PGR or covered business method patent review.

According to the proposed rules, a parallel petition would not be instituted without a good cause showing of why more than one petition is necessary. Factors for a good cause showing include:

  • A petitioner’s ranking of desired petitions for consideration
  • An explanation of differences and materiality between the petitions
  • The number of challenged patent claims, including those asserted by the patent owner in district court litigation
  • A priority date dispute
  • Alternative claim constructions requiring different prior art references on mutually exclusive grounds
  • Knowledge of asserted claims at the time of filing a petition
  • Complexity of the technology

Similar considerations would also apply to joinder petitions.

[...]

Continue Reading


read more

Drawing Can Teach Claim Limitations If “Clear on Its Face”

by | Apr 18, 2024 |

Addressing when a drawing in a prior art reference includes a teaching that is “clear on its face,” the Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision denying institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition. MAHLE Behr Charleston Inc. v. Catalano, IPR2023-00861 (PTAB Decision Review, Apr. 5, 2024) (Vidal, PTO Dir.)

MAHLE Behr filed a petition requesting institution of an IPR, challenging claims of a patent owned by Catalano. The patent is directed to a device known as a sacrificial anode that prevents corrosion in motor vehicle radiators caused by electrolysis. One of the claim terms at issue requires the anode to be “within 10 inches” of another element. MAHLE argued that a figure in a prior art reference anticipated or rendered obvious several challenged claims.

The Board denied the institution after determining that MAHLE did not establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. The Board cited the Federal Circuit’s 2000 decision in Hockerson-Halberstadt v. Avia Group International to explain that “[p]atent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” The Board concluded that the figure relied on by MAHLE did not provide exact dimensions and thus could not be sufficient to render the claims invalid.

MAHLE filed a request for Director Review, which was granted. In its request, MAHLE argued that the Board erred in its application of Federal Circuit case law on the use of patent drawings as prior art teachings. The Director agreed, explaining that “the Board did not adequately address [MAHLE’s] arguments regarding what [the figure in the prior art] clearly shows or would have reasonably suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Federal Circuit case law established that a claim may be anticipated or rendered obvious by a figure in the prior art if the drawing clearly discloses the claim limitation. If “a person of skill in the art could derive the claimed dimensions from the patent’s disclosure, there is no additional requirement that the specification must explicitly disclose the precise proportions or particular sizes.”

The Director further explained that “the Board did not adequately address MAHLE’s arguments regarding what [the prior art figure] clearly shows or would have reasonably suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” While the prior art figure did not disclose the precise proportions or measured quantity specified in the challenged claims, the figure showed the elements being located as claimed (necessarily within the 10 inches recited). The Director explained that the Board should have considered whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the figure to disclose the claimed elements being within 10 inches of each other.

The Director vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the petition with instructions to consider both what the prior art figure [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Is Evidence of All Claimed Elements in Prior Art Enough? Not Without Motivation to Combine

by | Apr 4, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that disclosure in the prior art of all recited claim elements across multiple references, without more, does not establish obviousness unless there is evidence of a motivation to combine. Virtek Vision Int’l ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc., Case No. 22-1998 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2024) (Moore, C.J.; Hughes, Stark, JJ.)

Virtek holds a patent that discloses “an improved method for aligning a laser projector with respect to a work surface.” Lasers are used to “project a template image onto a work surface to direct manufacturing processes.” The patent discloses a two-step process that improves efficiency over the prior art.

Aligned Vision petitioned for inter partes review (IPR), challenging all of the patent’s claims. Aligned Vision asserted four combinations of prior art references over which it contended the claims were obvious. In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that some of the claims were unpatentable as obvious, but others were not.

The Board determined that certain claims, which depended from the independent claim, would have been obvious over two combinations of references: Keitler and Briggs, and Briggs and Bridges. In pertinent part, the independent claim recites “identifying a pattern of the reflective targets on the work surface in a three dimensional coordinate system.” Save for the 3D claim element, all the other claim elements were disclosed in Bridges and Keitler. The Board found that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the 3D coordinate system disclosed in Briggs instead of the angular direction systems in Keitler or Bridges. The Board reasoned that this combination would have been obvious to try because Briggs disclosed both 3D coordinates and angular directions.

With respect to the direct appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the Board erred as a matter of law regarding motivation to combine. “It does not suffice to meet the motivation to combine requirement to recognize that two alternative arrangements such as an angular direction system using a single camera and a 3D coordinate system using two cameras were both known in the art.” Rather, the patent challenger must show that a skilled artisan would swap the element in one reference for an element in another reference. “The mere fact that these possible arrangements existed in the prior art does not provide a reason that a skilled artisan would have substituted the one-camera angular direction system in Keitler and Bridges with the two-camera 3D coordinate system disclosed in Briggs.”

Here, the patent challenger presented no argument in the IPR petition regarding why a skilled artisan would make this substitution, other than that the two different coordinate systems were “known to be used.” Specifically, Briggs made no mention of any benefits the 3D system might provide over the angular system. Aligned Vision’s expert testified multiple times that he could not provide a reason to combine the references, and Aligned Vision presented no evidence that “there are a finite number of [...]

Continue Reading



read more

New PTAB Claim Construction? Give the Parties Review Opportunity

by | Mar 28, 2024 |

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director vacated Final Written Decisions issued by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board that presented a sua sponte construction of a claim term in dispute, holding that the parties were not provided adequate notice of the Board’s new construction. Assa Abloy AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty., Ltd., IPR2022-01006, -01045, -01089 (PTAB Decision Review Mar. 15, 2024) (Vidal, PTO Dir.)

The Board issued Final Written Decisions in three inter partes reviews (IPRs), holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of the challenged claims were unpatentable. The petitioner requested Director Review, raising three issues concerning the Final Written Decisions’ treatment of the claim term “biometric signal”:

  1. The Board’s construction newly added a limitation that neither the petitioner nor the patent owner proposed
  2. The Board’s construction was erroneous
  3. The Board inconsistently addressed this claim limitation among the IPRs at issue.

The Director decided that review was appropriate.

The Director explained that in view of the petitioner’s and patent owner’s divergent post-institution positions regarding this limitation, the Board had authority to construe “biometric signal” even though its institution decisions indicated that the Board would give this claim term its plain and ordinary meaning. The petitioner argued that the term meant “the input and output of the biometric sensor,” and the patent owner argued that the term meant a “physical attribute of the user” (i.e., a fingerprint, facial pattern, iris, retina or voice). The Board held that it meant “a physical or behavioral biometric attribute that provides secure access to a controlled item.”

The Director vacated and remanded the Final Written Decisions, explaining that the Board failed to provide the petitioner and the patent owner reasonable notice of its new construction or the opportunity to present arguments concerning it, as required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Director noted that neither party requested the Board’s inclusion of a construction that required an attribute of the claimed signal to “provide[] secure access to a controlled item” and concluded this was the sort of “difficult to imagine” sua sponte construction that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held (in its 2021 decision in Qualcomm v. Intel) lacked sufficient notice if appearing for the first time in a Final Written Decision.

The Director instructed that on remand the Board should authorize the petitioner to file a supplemental briefing that addresses the Board’s construction and its application to the asserted prior art and authorize the patent owner to respond to the petitioner’s supplemental briefing.

The Director also noted that the patent owner’s proposed claim construction in the IPRs was similar to the construction that the Board adopted in its institution decisions in other IPRs challenging two of the patents at issue. In recognition of this situation, the Director also invited the petitioner, in its supplemental briefing, to address the perceived inconsistencies in these claim constructions.



read more

Specially Convened Rehearing Panel Vacates IPR Institution Denial

by | Mar 21, 2024 | ,

In a rehearing decision issued by a Delegated Rehearing Panel specially convened by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board vacated a prior panel decision denying institution, modified the claim construction to account for a “clear and unmistakable” prosecution history disclaimer, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the modified claim construction. SynAffix B.V. v. Hangzhou DAC Biotech Co., Ltd., No. IPR2022-01531, Paper 23 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2024) (Kim, Acting Deputy Chief APJ; Gongola, Vice Chief APJ; Worth, Acting Senior Lead APJ).

SynAffix filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of certain patent claims owned by Hangzhou DAC Biotech. The claims at issue are directed to a hydrophilic linker of formula (I), reproduced below.

A Board panel issued a prior decision denying institution. In the prior decision, the Board noted that it was undisputed that moieties Y or Z enable connection of the linker to a cell-binding agent (Y) or a cytotoxic drug (Z), and that Q and T are one sulfone, sulfoxide or phosphinate. That said, the central issue was whether Y or Z must act independently or whether they can act in concert with an adjoined Q or T compound. The Board concluded that Y and Z must act independently to enable their respective chemical reactions without assistance from an adjoining Q or T compound, because during prosecution the patent owner disclaimed embodiments in which Y or Z was adjoined to a sulfone compound with no additional adjacent sulfone, sulfoxide or phosphinate to overcome a rejection based on a prior art reference (Lees). Thus, the Board denied institution.

SynAffix subsequently sought review by the Director. The Director issued an order delegating director review to a rehearing panel. The rehearing panel reviewed whether the prior decision misapprehended or overlooked any issue raised in the request for director review. In particular, the rehearing panel considered whether, when the hydrophilic linker contains a vinylsulfone group, one of Y and Z may be understood to be a vinyl group with one of Q and T as a sulfone group (i.e., the vinyl group and the sulfone group mapped to separate letters), or instead whether one of Y and Z must be a vinylsulfone group (i.e., the vinyl group and the sulfone group mapped to the same letter).

While the rehearing panel agreed with the first version of the prosecution history disclaimer in the prior decision, it rejected a second under which two sulfone groups would not fall within the scope of the claim. First, the rehearing panel accepted the Board’s prior finding that the patent owner disclaimed embodiments in which Y or Z was adjoined to a sulfone compound with no additional sulfone, sulfoxide or phosphinate. However, the conclusion (in the prior decision) that the challenged independent claim excludes compounds in which the sole terminal group is vinyl sulfone without one or more adjacent Q and [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Be Cool: Don’t Construe the Construction

by | Mar 21, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision after concluding that the patent owner’s proposed construction would require the parties to construe the construction. CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Katherine Vidal, Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office, Case No. 22-1221 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2024) (Lourie, Bryson, Stark, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

CoolIT Systems owns a patent directed to a system for fluid heat transfer to cool electronic devices. The patent focuses on a heat exchange system comprising various components including a heat sink, a housing member and a compliant member. The patent claims priority from two provisional applications. Asetek Danmark petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the patent based on anticipation and obviousness. During the IPR proceeding, the parties disputed the meaning of the term “matingly engaged,” a term introduced in the later provisional application. To preserve validity, CoolIT argued that the term should be construed narrowly to mean “mechanically joined or fitted together to interlock.” Asetek sought a broader construction of “joined or fitted together to make contact,” which would encompass all methods of joining two surfaces.

The Board found both interpretations extreme and partially construed the term as being satisfied when at least a portion of the compliant member fits within the recessed region of the housing member. Despite agreement on the term “mate” to mean “join or fit together,” there was disagreement on the term “engage.” However, the Board did not determine whether “matingly engaged” could encompass forms of engagement beyond fitting.

The Board found that the cited prior art suggested a compliant member fitting the housing, thus rendering the claims obvious. CoolIT appealed. The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) intervened after Asetek withdrew from the appeal based on settlement.

CoolIT argued that the Board’s interpretation was flawed, and that the prior art did not meet the requirements of the “matingly engaged” limitation irrespective of the interpretation adopted. CoolIT contended that its proposed construction aligned with the invention’s purpose and properly distinguished between the 2007 and 2011 provisional applications. CoolIT also argued that the compliant member must partition features to control coolant flow, necessitating a specific type of joining or fitting.

In response, the PTO argued that CoolIT’s proposed construction read limitations from the specification into the claim. The PTO contended that neither the claims nor the specification required “interlock” and disputed CoolIT’s interpretation of the 2007 provisional application. The PTO did not propose an alternative construction, however.

The Federal Circuit concluded that “matingly engaged” should properly be construed as “mechanically joined or fitted together,” as that construction accurately reflected the term’s meaning and aligned with arguments presented by both parties. The Court rejected CoolIT’s proposal to add the word “interlock” because it would cause more confusion than clarity, noting that even CoolIT and the PTO still disagreed over what the term “interlock” meant and thus adding that term to the construction would provide little guidance.

The Federal Circuit found that the Board [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Consider Invention When Assessing Support for Claimed Range

by | Feb 29, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part a Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding that the claims at issue were either invalid under 35 U.S.C. §112 as unsupported by written description or obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Products S.A., Case No. 22-1862 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2024) (Chen, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

RAI owns a patent with claims directed to “electrically powered smoking devices that provide an inhalable vapor by heating tobacco or other substances without significant combustion.” Philip Morris challenged the patent in a post-grant review (PGR).

The Board issued a final written decision concluding that two dependent claims, which recited limitations requiring a heating member with “a length of about 75% to about 85% of a length of the disposable aerosol forming substance,” lacked § 112 written description support. The specification disclosed ranges of 75% – 125%, 80% – 120%, 85% – 115% and 90% – 110%. The Board explained that written description support was lacking because “the claimed range is different from and substantially narrower than the specific ranges disclosed in the specification.”

The Board found that the remaining claims were unpatentable as obvious based on a combination of prior art references where the heater found in one reference, Robinson, was replaced with the heater from another, Greim. Robinson explained that its heating element could be altered and acknowledged design choices, thus inviting skilled artisans to select an alternate appropriate heating element. Greim disclosed certain advantages to its heater. Thus, the Board found that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to replace Robinson’s heater with that of Greim, rendering the claims obvious. RAI appealed.

Citing its expert, RAI argued that the ranges disclosed in the specification all centered around 100%, so that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would not “conclude that the inventors possessed a range that went no higher than 85%[.]” The Federal Circuit began by summarizing a line of numerical range cases, including:

  • In re Wertheim (CCPA 1976), which found that a described range of 25% – 60%, with examples of 36% and 50%, supported a claim directed to a range of 35% – 60%.
  • In re Blaser (CCPA 1977), which found that a described range of 60° – 200° C supported a claim reciting a range of 80° – 200° C.
  • Kolmes v. World Fibers Corp. (Fed. Cir. 1997), which found that a described range of 4 – 12 turns per inch, and preference for 8 turns per inch, supported claims directed to 8 – 12 turns per inch.
  • In re Baird (CCPA 1965), which found that a relatively unexplained disclosure of 32 – 176° F did not support claims directed to a range from 40° to “at least as low as” 60° F.
  • Indivior UK v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (Fed. Cir. 2021), which found that:
    • Disclosure of ranges of at least 25%, at least 50% and “any” value [...]

      Continue Reading


read more

Sliced and Diced: Operating Manuals Are Printed Publications

by | Feb 15, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s non-obviousness determination, finding that the Board erred in determining that an operating manual did not qualify as printed publication prior art. Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc., Case Nos. 22-1751; -1813 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2024) (Reyna, Hughes, Stark, JJ.)

Provisur owns two patents related to advanced high-speed mechanical slicers used in food processing facilities that precisely slice and package food items such as meats and cheeses. The key components recited in the patent claims are a “loading apparatus” designed to load food items, a “feeding apparatus” responsible for supplying food items to a slicer, and a “stop gate” intended to regulate the assembly of food items prior to their entry into the slicing mechanism.

Weber filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging the validity of several claims of the patents based on certain operating manuals. During the IPR proceedings, the Board determined that Weber’s operating manuals did not qualify as prior art printed publications because they were distributed selectively and subject to confidentiality restrictions. The Board also concluded that the prior art combinations, which included Weber, failed to disclose crucial claim limitations, notably the “disposed over” and “stop gate” limitations. The Board found the challenged claims not unpatentable. Weber appealed.

Weber argued that the Board erred in determining that the operating manuals were insufficiently accessible to constitute printed publications, specifically contending that the Board misapplied the Federal Circuit’s 2009 decision in Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp. The Court agreed. It explained that unlike Cordis, where academic monographs were limited to distribution among a select few, Weber’s operating manuals were intended for distribution to purchasers of the machines and others to provide instructions on food slicer usage and maintenance. The Court explained that the evidence in the form of delivery records and email exchanges showed that manuals were available to customers upon purchase or request. The Federal Circuit also noted that the manuals were not bound by any confidentiality restrictions. The Court thus concluded that the operating manuals qualified as printed publications.

Turning to claim construction, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s interpretation of the “disposed over” and “stop gate” limitations. Consistent with long-standing precedent, the Court emphasized the importance of examining intrinsic evidence, including the claims themselves, the specification and the patent’s prosecution history. Weber argued that the claims’ language implied a broader feed apparatus positioning over the loading apparatus without strict alignment requirements. Supported by expert opinions, Weber contended that neither the claim language nor the specification mandated direct alignment. The Court agreed with Weber. The Court emphasized that “disposed over” demanded only a general positioning of the feed apparatus above the loading apparatus, not a direct positioning as the Board had construed.

Similarly, concerning the “stop gate” limitation, the Federal Circuit agreed that the Board’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence because evidence, such as the manuals, disclosed the claimed conveyer mechanism in a manner sufficient to establish its [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Legal Notices  |  Privacy & Cookies Policy

Attorney Advertising © 2024 McDermott Will & Emery

Contact Us: info@mwe.com

Attorney Advertising ©2020 McDermott Will & Emery