“When the arguments made and evidence presented in an Inter Partes Review Petition rely on the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms and fail to account for or address well-established presumptions, such as the presumption that different claim terms have different meanings, which establish the plain and ordinary meaning based on a foreseeable application of the presumptions, does Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023) strip the Patent Trial and Appeals Board of its discretion to reject as untimely Petitioner’s new unpatentability arguments, which address the foreseeable claim construction for the first time in the Reply brief, or does that discretion, as recognized in, inter alia, Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs. Inc., No. 2021-1412, 2022 WL 989403 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2022) and Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765 (Fed. Cir. 2018) remain intact given the Petitioner’s obligation to meet the statutory particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)?”
