Abbott Laboratories v. AltIvera LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00425
• Patent #: 7,969,307
• Filed: January 16, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Altivera LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-3, 5, 9, and 10

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Diagnostic Radio Frequency Identification Sensors And Applications Thereof
• Brief Description: The ’307 patent discloses a system where a wireless device, such as a cell phone, functions as a universal reader for various diagnostic sensors. The system's core concept involves the wireless device retrieving a sensor's unique ID, communicating that ID to a remote server, and then downloading sensor-specific software from the server to interpret the sensor's data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Bandy - Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10 are obvious over Bandy.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bandy (Patent 7,148,803).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bandy, which was cited but not substantively examined during prosecution, discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Bandy teaches a distributed RF sensor network where a wireless reader, such as a cell phone, interrogates sensors. Crucially, Bandy discloses that necessary information and software to analyze a sensor can be retrieved from a remote processor based on the sensor's unique ID. This downloaded software "trains" the wireless device to analyze data from a specific sensor type, directly mapping to the key limitation of authenticating a sensor ID to download corresponding interpretation software. Bandy also discloses using cell phones as readers (claim 2), chemical sensors (claim 5), and GPS/non-GPS geolocation (claims 9-10).
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable, as this is a single-reference obviousness ground.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Bandy in view of Heller - Claim 3 is obvious over Bandy in view of Heller.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bandy (Patent 7,148,803) and Heller (International Publication No. WO 02/058537).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically targets claim 3, which requires the sensor unit to be integrated into a "disposable wireless skin patch." Petitioner asserted that Bandy teaches affixing its RF sensor to a person for "remote diagnostics monitoring." Heller, which relates to analyte monitoring devices, explicitly teaches providing an "on-skin sensor control unit" on a disposable "adhesive patch."
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references because it would have been a simple and predictable design choice to use the known technique of an adhesive patch, as taught by Heller, to implement Bandy's on-body sensor. This combination applies a conventional technique to a known device for its intended purpose.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as affixing sensors to skin via adhesive patches was a well-known and predictable method.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Beck in view of Heller and Lovejoy - Claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 10 are obvious over Beck in view of Heller and Lovejoy.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Beck (Application # 2002/0178126), Heller (WO 02/058537), and Lovejoy (Patent 6,031,454).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Beck, which was not cited during prosecution, discloses the core system of claim 1. Beck teaches a remote medical monitoring system with a server, a client computing device (e.g., an "Internet enabled cellular phone"), and a wireless medical sensor. In Beck, the server authenticates the medical device using its serial number (a unique ID) and, in response, provides the client device with "software protocol component updates" needed to communicate with and interpret data from that specific sensor. Heller is added to teach specifics of sensor design, such as using a reference sensor (temperature probe) and integrating sensors into a disposable skin patch (for claim 3). Lovejoy is added to provide explicit teachings for geolocation means (for claims 9 and 10), a feature Petitioner noted was common for cell phones at the time.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Beck and Heller to improve Beck's medical device with the known, advanced sensor implementation details from Heller (e.g., skin patches, reference sensors). A POSITA would combine Beck with Lovejoy to add standard, expected functionality (geolocation) to Beck's cell phone-based client device for providing location context for medical data or enabling emergency response.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining these references would yield predictable results, as it involves integrating known sensor technologies (Heller) and standard device features (Lovejoy) into a compatible system architecture (Beck).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the final "wherein" clause of independent claim 1, which recites the remote server authenticating a sensor ID and communicating software to the wireless device, "thereby allowing" it to interpret sensor data.
• Proposed Construction: Petitioner proposed that this clause requires a cause-and-effect relationship, meaning the server communicates the software in response to a successful authentication of the sensor ID.
• Justification: This construction was supported by the plain language ("thereby"), the specification's flowchart (Fig. 22), and the prosecution history, where an Examiner's amendment changed "or to first download" to "and software related to" to make the software communication a required, not optional, part of the process. This construction is central to Petitioner's argument that the prior art teaches the claimed invention.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
• §314(a) / Fintiv Factors: Denial would be inappropriate because no trial date was set in the parallel district court litigation, suggesting the PTAB proceeding would be more efficient.
• §325(d) Factors: Denial would be inappropriate because the petition raises new arguments based on art not substantively considered during prosecution. Specifically, Beck was never cited, and while Bandy was of record, the Examiner never applied or discussed it in any rejection.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 10 of the ’307 patent as unpatentable.