Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.
20-1438
| Fed. Cir. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- The '712 patent (Corephotonics) claims a compact five-element telephoto lens for phones with TTL ≤ 6.5 mm and TTL/EFL < 1.0, and an F-number below about 3.2 (claim 1; claim 6 limits F# < 2.9).
- Apple petitioned for IPR, asserting Konno (JP patent publication) anticipated many claims (using Konno Example EX2-LN2) and that claims 6 and 14 would be obvious over Konno in view of Bareau.
- Konno’s EX2-LN2 embodiment reports EFL 5.51 mm, TTL 4.91 mm, and TTL/EFL ≈ 0.891 (meets numeric claim limits), but contains a disclosed error: lens elements L4 and L5 overlap, rendering the embodiment inoperative unless fixed.
- Bareau (an optics paper) discloses typical cellphone-module F-number ≈ 2.8 and was relied on to show a skilled artisan would reduce Konno’s telephoto F# from 4.0 to 2.8.
- The PTAB found Konno did not anticipate the challenged claims and that Konno+Bareau did not render dependent claims 6 and 14 obvious; Apple appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Apple) | Defendant's Argument (Corephotonics / Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Konno anticipates claims (enablement/operative embodiment) | Konno’s EX2-LN2 literally meets numeric claim limits (EFL, TTL, TTL/EFL) and should anticipate despite reported overlap error. | Konno’s EX2-LN2 is inoperative due to overlapping L4/L5; an inoperative embodiment cannot anticipate without impermissible modification. | Affirmed: Konno’s inoperative EX2-LN2 does not anticipate (inoperative prior art cannot anticipate). |
| Whether Konno+Bareau renders claims 6 and 14 obvious (motivation to combine / mathematical consistency) | A skilled artisan would lower Konno’s telephoto F# from 4.0 to 2.8 per Bareau; the resulting wide/tele F# ratio (3.0/2.8 = 1.07) satisfies Konno’s desirable ratio (0.6–1.3), providing a rationale to combine. | The Board concluded Bareau’s teachings do not provide sufficient rationale to lower Konno’s telephoto F#, citing that the modification would conflict with Konno’s own teachings (and that the ratio would not satisfy Konno). | Vacated and remanded: the Board made a clear mathematical error (ratio does satisfy Konno’s conditional expression), so its nonobviousness finding is vacated for reconsideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, 314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (prior-art publications presumed enabling; burden of proving non-enablement is on patentee)
- In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (examiner/ petitioner not required to prove enablement before patent/applicant rebuts non-enablement)
- Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharm., Inc., 545 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (presumption that an anticipating prior-art patent enables the claimed invention)
- Guangdong Alison Hi‑Tech Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 936 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (anticipation requires every claim element to be expressly or inherently disclosed in a single prior art reference)
- Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., 909 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (prior art that must be modified to meet a claim does not anticipate)
- In re Dowty, 118 F.2d 363 (C.C.P.A. 1941) (an inoperative prior-art device cannot be relied upon as anticipation)