November 25, 2022
Authored and Edited by Thomas L. Irving; Sarah Royer and Stacy Lewis*
In SolarEdge Techs., Inc. v. Fronius Int’l GMBH, No. IPR2022-00849 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2022), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied institution of inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,137,919 (“the ’919 patent”).
The ‘919 patent describes an inverter, with a lower and an upper housing part and electronic components which are arranged in both the lower and upper housing parts. ’919 patent at 1:16-20. An electrical and mechanical connection is made possible through a pivoting movement, achieved by the extension of a slotted guide track [36] corresponding to the diameter [38] of a rotating element [35]. ’919 patent at 2:30-35, 4:6-15.
Claim 1 recites:
’919 patent, 7:16-8:3 (emphasis added).
SolarEdge, an Israeli company that also develops inverters, challenged claims 1-7 of the ’919 patent on obviousness grounds in light of U.S. Patent No. 5,478,259 and either German Patent No. G 91 05 122.3 (“Siemens”) or U.S. Patent No. 7,035,115 (“Walesa”). SolarEdge Techs., Inc., No. IPR2022-00849 at *4.
The PTAB panel denied institution of inter partes review, finding that SolarEdge did not show “a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its obviousness challenges involving either Siemens or Walesa.” SolarEdge Techs., Inc., No. IPR2022-00849 at *5.
For both the Siemens and Walesa patents, the housing components and the electrical contact-making components described together as part of the same lower or upper housing structures. Id. at *7-8. In the ’919 patent, however, the contact-making system and the housing components are distinct from one another. Id. at *8. When a claim separately lists elements, the presumption is that those elements are distinct components of the invention. Id., citing Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The language of claim 1 supports viewing the housing and contact-making system as two distinct structures, because the claim lists these elements separately. Id. Independent claim 1 recites “an upper and a lower housing part, wherein electronic components are arranged in the upper and lower housing parts, said components being electrically connected to one another in a releasable manner by means of a contact-making system formed from two parts.” Id. at *7 (emphasis added).
In addition to listing the housing and contact-making components as separate elements, claim 1 also includes a clause that further supports viewing these two components separately. Id. at *8. Claim 1 recites, “wherein in the upper and lower housing parts, parts of the contact-making system are arranged.” Id. The housing and contact-making structures must be distinct because a structure cannot be arranged in itself. Id.
Lastly, the specification “consistently describes the housing and contact-making structures as distinct.” Id. For example, the specification states that “electronic components are arranged within the upper and lower housing parts 33, 34 in most cases” and “it is also possible not only to connect housing parts 33, 34 and the contact-making system 40 to one another by means of the rotating element 35, but also to couple individual devices with each other in such a way that data and/or signals are exchanged via the contact-making system 40. . . .” ’919 patent at 5:15-20, 6:32-37.
Because SolarEdge could not “identify separate structures in the asserted references for the claimed housing and contact-making system” they were not able to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in their § 103 objections. Id. at *8.
Though components of an invention may at first glance correspond in their functionality with components of asserted references, if the components are written in the claims and specification as separate elements, the components are distinct from each other and are not obvious over references where those components are described together.
In Becton, Dickinson, relied upon by the PTAB, the claim at issue listed four separate elements and the claim construction lesson was clear: “[w]here a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d at 1254.
For claim drafters, therefore, the lesson is to be careful and deliberate, knowing that reciting components separately will be construed to be distinct from each other. Reciting components separately may help for patentability/validity, but the flip side is that each of those components will be necessary for literal infringement.
*Sarah Royer and Stacy Lewis are Law Clerks at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2022 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.