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

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.