• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All

Search the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

69 results

38 Institution Decision: DECISIONGranting Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing37 CFR § 4271dDenying Institution of Inter Partes Review35 USC § 315b

Document IPR2018-01754, No. 38 Institution Decision - DECISIONGranting Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing37 CFR § 4271dDenying Institution of Inter Partes Review35 USC § 315b (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23...
... dismissed complaint.” We see no reason to distinguish a complaint dismissed for lack of standing, as the one at issue here, from the complaint in Bennett, which was dismissed for lack of 13 IPR2018-01754 Patent 9,152,019 B2 personal ...
For example, the Board has determined that a complaint dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction triggered § 315(b)’s time bar.
See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (describing standing as “[t]he requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation”).
Harmon, however, is a decision from the Virginia Supreme Court relating to the application of a statute of limitations for redress of a personal injury under Virginia code.
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

15 Decision Denying Institution: Trial Instituted Document

Document IPR2016-01754, No. 15 Decision Denying Institution - Trial Instituted Document (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2017)

cite Cite Document

15 Institution Decision Deny: Institution Decision Deny

Document IPR2024-01099, No. 15 Institution Decision Deny - Institution Decision Deny (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2025)
The patent is titled “Alpine Ski Binding System Having Release Logic for Inhibiting Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury.” Ex. 1001, code [54] (emphasis added).
As further explained in the Abstract: The binding system includes a secondary toe release that provides an attenuated release threshold under lateral shear loading conditions that can cause anterior cruciate ligament injuries.
... [ACL] injuries.2 E.g., see Ex. 1001, 1:63–2:12. The Specification emphasizes that “[i]n particular, the present invention is directed to an alpine ski binding system having release logic for inhibiting anterior cruciate ligament [ACL] injury.” ...
The patent also explains that lateral shear loading conditions in this area can cause anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Ex. 1001, 7:15–20 (Q3 “appears to be the quadrant most implicated in ACL injury”).
Rather, obviousness additionally requires 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. In determining whether there would ...
... of the binding assembly that causes a specific sequence of actions to actuate or not actuate the first release in response to whether externally applied loads on the ski exceed a predetermined threshold correlated with risk of ACL injury.
... of actions, in response to externally applied loads on the ski that allow or disallow binding release (via the first release) to occur dependent upon whether predetermined loading conditions are met that would indicate risk of ACL injury.
... sequence of actions to actuate or not actuate the first release in response to whether externally applied loads on the ski exceed a predetermined 33 IPR2024-01099 Patent 7,523,953 B2 threshold correlated with risk of ACL injury”, ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

11 Institution Decision Deny: Institution Decision Deny

Document IPR2024-00520, No. 11 Institution Decision Deny - Institution Decision Deny (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2024)
Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in bioengineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a ...
... in various pieces of prior art, “the factfinder must further consider the factual questions of whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine those references, and whether in making that combination, a person ...
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; see also In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In KSR, the Supreme Court also stated that an invention may be found obvious if trying a ...
Stafford explains that once sensor 106 is accurately positioned, inserter 102 is removed and discarded, and that doing so “requires a level of care” to avoid injury from the introducer’s sharp tip.
Raymond teaches several advantages of its insertion device, including positioning the needle within the insertion device before insertion and retracting the needle within the insertion device after insertion to prevent accidental injury to ...
Petitioner does not provide any evidence of record that a person of skill in the art would have recognized that the 34 IPR2024-00520 Patent 11,266,335 B2 structures taught by Turner for preventing OBU rotation and those of the ’335 patent for holding the OBU at its proper height within the ...
Petitioner does not provide any persuasive evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the structures taught by Turner for preventing OBU rotation and those of Raymond and the ’335 patent for holding the OBU in its proper position within the insertion device and ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

17 Institution Decision Deny: Institution Decision DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314

Document IPR2024-00536, No. 17 Institution Decision Deny - Institution Decision DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2024)
... B2 unpatentable as obvious, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person ...
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art B. We review the grounds of unpatentability in view of the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA” or “POSA”).
Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Industrial Design, Product Design, or similar field, with at least two years of industry experience in one of these fields, ...
Based on our review of the ’981 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’981 patent and the prior art.
In this context, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.
Instead, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to look to the teachings of Thorens231 because Thorens231 and Thorens788 share common inventors and are directed to “substantially the same invention.” Pet. 68. Petitioner ...
... been motivated to provide a mouthpiece housing for Thorens788 because the cartridge is replaceable, and without a housing a consumer would be forced to grip the heating element to remove the mouthpiece” which “could lead to injury ...
Here, however, we cannot reasonably discern any persuasive implicit argument in Petitioner’s arguments directed to common inventors, same alleged invention resulting in substantially the same device, and possible injury to the ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

15 Institution Decision Deny: Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314

Document IPR2024-00267, No. 15 Institution Decision Deny - Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2024)
... as obvious, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person ...
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art B. We review the grounds of unpatentability in view of the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Industrial Design, Product Design, or similar field, with at least two years of industry experience in one of these fields” ...
Based on our review of the ’722 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’722 patent and the prior art.
... Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person ...
... housing, such as that shown in Thorens231, because “without a housing, a consumer would be 35 IPR2024-00267 Patent 11,134,722 B2 forced to grip the heating element to remove the mouthpiece” which “could lead to injury ...
... of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to provide a mouthpiece housing for Thorens788 because the cartridge is replaceable, and without a housing, 38 IPR2024-00267 Patent 11,134,722 B2 a consumer would be forced to grip the heating element to remove the mouthpiece” which “could lead to injury ...
Here, however, we cannot reasonably discern any implicit argument in Petitioner’s arguments directed to common inventors, same alleged invention, and possible injury to the consumer, and the evidence discussed above that supports ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

13 Institution Decision Deny: Institution Decision Deny

Document IPR2023-01396, No. 13 Institution Decision Deny - Institution Decision Deny (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2024)

cite Cite Document

13 Institution Decision Deny: Institution Decision Deny

Document IPR2023-01397, No. 13 Institution Decision Deny - Institution Decision Deny (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2024)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 6 >>