ALJ Finds Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Claims Patent Ineligible Because They Recite Conventional Structure Combined with Abstract Results

Apr 26, 2022

Reading Time : 3 min

Complainant US Synthetic filed a complaint against numerous respondents for importing products that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,616,306, 10,507,565 and 10,508,502. The claims-at-issue recite a PDC comprising particular structural features, including diamond grains of a maximum size and a catalyst including cobalt. The claims further recite that the PDC exhibit certain properties—e.g., coercivity, electrical conductivity, G-ratio, thermal stability, permeability and/or lateral dimension—each within a claimed range.

The ALJ analyzed eligibility using the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework. In step one, the court determines whether the claims are “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). If they are, the court proceeds to step two and considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id.

Addressing step one, the ALJ found that the claims recite compositions of matter not found in nature, including structural features (e.g., grain size and the presence of a catalyst) that are not problematic under Alice. But the ALJ found that the claims also recite performance measures (e.g., G-Ratio and thermal stability) and side effects (e.g., electrical and magnetic parameters) that are problematic. According to the ALJ, the structural features were well-known and conventional, while the performance measures and side effects were abstract goals, resulting in the claim reading on any and all means of achieving the claimed goals.

The ALJ found the claims were analogous those in Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products, Fixtures, and Components Thereof, Inv. No,. 337-TA-1213 (Aug. 17, 2021) (Initial Determination), aff’d in pertinent part, Comm’n Op. (Jan. 14, 2022). In Light-Emitting Diodes, the claims covered a lighting device comprising a solid state light emitter with a “wall plug efficiency of at least 85 lumens per watt.” Those claims encompassed ineligible subject matter because they were directed to an abstract goal of efficiency, however achieved.

Complainant argued that the claims were not directed to a law of nature and cited cases for the proposition that an invention can be claimed by reciting its properties. The ALJ, however, found that the claims are problematic, not because they recite a law of nature or properties, but because the claimed properties are a result or effect, and thus abstract. The ALJ distinguished patent-eligible properties that are design parameters, such as electrical insulation properties, needed to improve performance of the claimed apparatus. The ALJ decided that is not the context here because the claimed properties are not desirable features as such; they are just a result of other desirable features.

Addressing step two, the ALJ found that the claims do not recite any limitations that would transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. According to the ALJ, the claims recite structural limitations that are generic to all PDCs, and fail to recite structures or any other inventive feature to achieve the objectionable claim limitations (G-Ratio, thermal stability, electrical and magnetic parameters). The ALJ discussed a “mismatch” between the specification, which may teach a skilled artisan how to make the PDC having the recited characteristics, and the claims, which recite an abstract idea instead of the particular structures or methods of manufacturing discussed in the specification.

Practice Tip: Patent owners should avoid claiming the advance over the prior art using limitations that are simply results or effects, i.e., in purely functional terms that encompass an abstract idea. Instead, Patent Owners should describe and claim structures in the claimed system and how the claimed characteristics improve the system’s performance, showing that such claim elements are technologically innovative and not generic. In the PDC field, patent owners should describe and claim innovative design choices or manufacturing variables in particular applications, and avoid relying only on performance measures or side effects that are indirect measures of the effectiveness of such design choices and manufacturing variables.

Certain Polycrystalline Diamond Compacts and Articles Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1236 (Mar. 3, 2022) (Initial Determination).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.