• Apple, Inc. v. Wecrevention, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 24, 2026 · IPR2026-00242 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied the petitions and instituted no trial, exercising discretion based on Petitioner’s unexplained inconsistent claim-construction positions before the Board and district court.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “As I have indicated previously, petitioners should be presenting a single construction and applying that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic and raises concerns of strategic litigation behavior spill-over into the PTAB inconsistent with Congress’s intent to provide a quick and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4; see H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 at 48 (2011). Here, Petitioner offers no explanation for its divergent positions.” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “As I have indicated previously, petitioners should be presenting a single construction and applying that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic and raises concerns of strategic litigation behavior spill-over into the PTAB inconsistent with Congress’s intent to provide a quick and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4; see H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 at 48 (2011). Here, Petitioner offers no explanation for its divergent positions.” slip op. at 3

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,894,098
• Tiktok, Inc. v. Shopsee, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2026 · IPR2025-01485 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the Petition under § 314(a), declining to institute an IPR.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “[W]hen a petitioner advances different positions before the Board and a district court, that petitioner is required to explain why those different positions are warranted.” Tesla Inc., v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, IPR2025-00340, Paper 18 at 3 (Director Nov. 5, 2025) (informative) (citing Revvo Techs., Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Techs., Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 at 3–5 (Director Nov. 3, 2025) (precedential)). Petitioner has not done so. Rather, Petitioner has stipulated that it will continue to pursue different constructions and abandon the inconsistent construction in district court if the IPR is instituted. This is not in keeping with our precedent, and I decline to modify it to permit this approach. Additionally, Petitioner’s claim construction stipulation is distinguishable from its stipulation that “it will not pursue in the parallel litigation the grounds it raised or could have reasonably raised in the petition, and that it will not pursue any ground that relies on Ohliger or the Veepio system.” DD Opp. 1–2. The latter stipulation increases efficiency by reducing duplication between the district court and the Board. It also minimizes the potential for inconsistent outcomes in the two proceedings. Petitioner’s stipulation not to continue to advance different claim construction positions lacks similar benefits. At best, it replaces one argument in district court for another argument at the Board. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for patent owner

    “[W]hen a petitioner advances different positions before the Board and a district court, that petitioner is required to explain why those different positions are warranted.” Tesla Inc., v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, IPR2025-00340, Paper 18 at 3 (Director Nov. 5, 2025) (informative) (citing Revvo Techs., Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Techs., Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 at 3–5 (Director Nov. 3, 2025) (precedential)). Petitioner has not done so. Rather, Petitioner has stipulated that it will continue to pursue different constructions and abandon the inconsistent construction in district court if the IPR is instituted. This is not in keeping with our precedent, and I decline to modify it to permit this approach. slip op. at 2

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,134,316
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. KP Innovations 2, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00101 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 18–21, finding no reasonable likelihood on three grounds and declining institution in view of the limited potential reach of the remaining ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Regarding the alleged anticipation by Okaya, Petitioner has not adequately shown that Okaya discloses that the audio and video outputs of carousel 10 connect to a communication network without the intervening use of a computer or video conferencing system to which the carousel is connected. Okaya specifically describes that “the multimedia carousel 10 includes several input and output terminals for integrating with a multimedia computer or video conferencing system.” Ex. 1006, 3:1–4. The specific scenario described in Okaya, in column 3, lines 43 to 61, also has carousel 10 connected to a notebook PC. Thus, Petitioner’s arguments based on carousel 10 itself as the device of limitation [18a] is inadequate. See also” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “For reasons discussed below, we find Petitioner’s reasoning to be insufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to add two cameras to Nagasawa’s case body 1, one on each side of case body 1. Petitioner does not adequately address the issue of sufficient spacing on Nagasawa’s case body 1, which includes two back-to-back mounted displays 4 and 8 (Figure 1A), to include two additional cameras, one facing inward and the other facing outward, particularly as one side of case body 1 is used for gaming (Fig. 1B, Ex. 1007, 3:53–65). In Nagasawa’s fifth embodiment, which includes a camera for video conferencing, the camera is placed in the hinge connecting case bodies 1 and 2, and not within case body 1. That is an indication that there is not enough room in Nagasawa’s case body 1 to incorporate a camera, much less two cameras as Petitioner has proposed to meet limitations [18c] and [18d]. Nagasawa’s Figure 12B is reproduced below: Figure 12B is a front view of a fifth embodiment of Nagasawa’s foldable phone in the unfolded position. Ex. 1007, 3:24–26. Nagasawa describes: “Video conference display may be provided where the photo sticker 51 is to be affixed in order to provide folding portable apparatus equipped with a small-sized TV camera 53 at the hinge.” Id. at 7:36–39. Nagasawa’s design already dictates where a camera would be mounted, and omits discussion of any other locations of that camera, much less a placement of it on the phone case body. Id.” slip op. at 23

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Additionally, Dr. Theogarajan testifies: “A person using [Nagasawa’s] pocket game would cover any camera placed on the outer surface of the first case body. Any camera placed in such a position would be abused with dirt and oil from a game player’s hand.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 145. We credit the testimony. It further undermines Petitioner’s proposed addition of two cameras to Nagasawa’s case body 1. Also, Nagasawa’s fifth embodiment already includes a video conferencing camera facing the user, mounted in the hinge connecting case bodies 1 and 2. In light of that teaching, there is little reason to add a camera to the inward facing side of Nagasawa’s case body 1.” slip op. at 24

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Petitioner asserts: “[T]he Board need not construe any term because the prior art invalidates the claims under any plausible construction.” Pet. 12. Petitioner has not proposed an express construction for any claim term. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]he term ‘receive and transmit information’ [in claim 18] means real-time or near real-time audio and visual information.” Prelim. Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner further argues that “Petitioner accepts Patent Owner’s construction because the construction is a plausible construction, and Petitioner stated that they believe their art invalidates the claims under any plausible constructions.” Id. at 16. For purposes of this Decision, however, we need not decide whether to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. C.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,499,168
• Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01482 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 4, 8–10, 12, 13, 15, 18–20, and 25, exercising § 314(a) discretion after balancing the Fintiv factors and finding the merits not particularly strong.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied

    “partes review “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts,” and strongly weighs against exercising our authority to deny institution. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Of the three district court proceedings, the Lenovo Group case, pending in the Eastern District of Texas, is the most significant to our analysis here. In the Lenovo Group case, Lenovo Group has not requested a stay. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner argues that the Lenovo Group case is not likely to be stayed based on that court’s low grant rate in other cases and the progress of that case in particular. Id. at 17. The district court in the HP case denied a stay without prejudice and stated that a stay could be reconsidered in the future depending on the outcome at the PTAB. Prelim. Reply 3. The Dell case has been stayed. Id. On this record, we decline to speculate as to how any of the involved district courts where no stay is pending might rule on any future motion to stay. Thus, we determine that, while one stay has been granted, the lack of a stay in the other underlying district court cases, especially the Lenovo Group case, is not sufficiently persuasive to weigh this factor against exercising discretion. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative), cautions against speculating whether the district court would grant a stay if one were requested. Therefore, this factor has a neutral effect on the overall balancing of the Fintiv factors. B. Proximity of Trial Date to Projected Statutory Deadline (Factor 2) The scheduled trial date for the Lenovo Group case is November 3, 2025, which is about six months prior to the expected date for the final written decision here (i.e., late April 2026). See Prelim. Resp. 20; IPR2024- 01429, Ex. 2002 (Lenovo Group case Docket Control Order), 1. Petitioner argues this trial date is uncertain. Prelim. Reply 3. Further, Petitioner focuses its argument on what it terms a “growing backlog” in the Eastern District of Texas and “associated scheduling uncertainty.” Id. at 4. Petitioner refers to the status of the HP case, which is currently set for trial on September 21, 2026, and the stay in the Dell case. Id. Patent Owner responds that “[b]oth the scheduled trial date and the date of trial [in the Lenovo Group case] based on median time-to-trial statistics occur months before a final written decision would be expected here.” Prelim. Sur-reply 4. Patent Owner asserts that the time-to-trial statistics for the Eastern District of Texas project a median time-to-trial of 21.9 months. Prelim. Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 2007, U.S. District Courts Federal Court Management Statistics–Profiles—September 30, 2024). This projection yields a trial date that is prior to the expected final written decision date of April 2026. Prelim. Sur-reply 4. As with the previous factor, the status of the Lenovo Group case is our focus here. As stated, that trial is set to occur about six months before a final written decision would issue in this proceeding. The district court has stated that this trial date setting “cannot be changed without an acceptable showing of good cause.” Prelim. Resp. 20. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s unsupported argument that the trial date is uncertain. We also consider the fact that the median time-to-trial statistic discussed by both parties projects a trial date earlier than the actual date set by the district court. Ex. 2007; Prelim. Sur-reply 1. The fact that the time-to-trial statistic is earlier than the trial date set in the Lenovo Group case confirms that the schedule set by the district court is credible and should be given weight. From this evidence, we are persuaded that we should rely on the trial” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “E. Conclusion Regarding the Merits Petitioner does not present particularly strong merits. Petitioner’s arguments on the “bus limitation,” to succeed at trial, would require addressing a claim construction issue that was never addressed in the Petition and is arguably contradicted by the ’520 patent, which discloses transmitting packets representing a plurality of different control signals on a single bus. See Prelim. Sur-reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:34–38, 9:23–25, 9:50–54). Similarly, prevailing on the “modified protocol” issue would require proving that the HDMI–C protocol, which uses the same separate channel arrangement for CEC and DDC as standard HDMI, is sufficiently “modified” to meet the claim. Taking into account Patent Owner’s persuasive arguments supra in response, and for the reasons given, we do not find the merits of Petitioner’s position on either of these dispositive issues to be particularly strong.” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner submits that it “for the purposes of this proceeding, the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that no terms require construction. Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We determine there are no claim terms that need to be expressly construed for this Decision.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner states that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training and three years of work experience with data communications systems or interfaces, including at least some experience with serial or display data communications systems or interfaces .” Prelim. Resp. 12. The differences between these nearly-identical definitions are minor and immaterial to our decision. We regard either description as consistent with the challenged patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,856,520
• Par-Kan Company, LLC v. Unverferth Manufacturing CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2024-01426 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner did not show Morris or the Hiniker Webpage was prior art for claims 16–22, and declined institution for claim 23 in view of efficiency.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “partes review, the patent owner bears the burden of producing evidence supporting an invention date before the reference’s effective date. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At the institution stage of an inter partes review, the statutory “reasonable likelihood” standard for institution applies to the issue whether a reference qualifies as prior art. Cf. Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 12 (precedential) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)).” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “partes review, the patent owner bears the burden of producing evidence supporting an invention date before the reference’s effective date. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At the institution stage of an inter partes review, the statutory “reasonable likelihood” standard for institution applies to the issue whether a reference qualifies as prior art. Cf. Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 12 (precedential) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)).” slip op. at 7

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “The Board may consider the number of claims and grounds that meet the reasonable likelihood standard when deciding whether to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 at” slip op. at 14

  § 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,967,940
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01247 · APJ Donald E Daybell · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied: claims 1–16 lacked a reasonable likelihood of success, and the Board declined to reach claims 17–18 because reviewing only two potentially viable claims would be inefficient.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “as of the time of the invention of the ’492 Patent “had at least a bachelor’s in EE/CE/CS, physics, or equivalent, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures, protocols and signal propagation in wireless networks. More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citation omitted). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion. At this juncture, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. This definition appears to be consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “In view of the parties’ agreement to adopt Patent Owner’s construction and the District Court’s persuasive analysis, we find that the “multi-user detector decision unit” terms in claims 1 and 10 are properly construed on the record before us to recite the functions “using decision criteria to determine a selected multi-user detector” for claim 1 and “select[ing] a multi-user detector based upon at least one threshold” for claim 10, both of which have the following corresponding structure: a MUD decision unit 220 (or, alternatively, decision logic unit 520) configured to perform one or more of the several decision algorithms (e.g., the BER/User, SINR/Symbol, Filtered SINR/Symbol, Detected Amount/Symbol, Correlation Matrix Ratio/User, Correlation Matrix Eigenvalues, Computational Complexity, Number of Bits, Number of Users, and other algorithms) disclosed at 8:12–18, 13:35–14:40, 15:3–21, 19:43– 48, 19:56–62, and 20:41–49 of the ’492 Patent.” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “a reasonable likelihood of success in establishing that Onggosanusi teaches or suggests these limitations. Petitioner does not rely on Egnor for these limitations. Therefore, Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success in establishing that claims 1 and 10 would have been obvious over Onggosanusi and Egnor. Claims 2–9 and 11–16 depend from claims 1 and 10 respectively, and thus Petitioner likewise fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success that those dependent claims would have been obvious over Onggosanusi and Egnor. Therefore, we find that Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success for Ground 1.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). “Even when a petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to one or more claims, . . . institution of review remains discretionary.” Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative) (citing SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018); Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1367). Where a Petition presents a reasonable likelihood of success as to only a small number of the challenged claims, the Board has the discretion to decline to institute review, because instituting a full review on all challenged claims may be an inefficient use of the Board’s limited resources. See, e.g., Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 at 42–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative) (denying institution where a petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on only two out of twenty- a petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on only two out of twenty claims). Of the eighteen challenged claims, we have found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success as to sixteen of those claims. This leaves a single independent claim (claim 17) and a single dependent claim (claim 18) remaining for consideration. Even were we to conclude that Petitioner had established a reasonable likelihood of success as to claims 17 and 18, this would leave at most two claims subject to a single ground upon which such a showing had been made, out of eighteen challenged claims. Based on the particular circumstances of this case, it would be inefficient for the Board to expend resources on a full review of all eighteen challenged claims, where Petitioner has failed to establish even a reasonable likelihood of success as to the vast majority of those claims. Accordingly, we need not, and do not, take any position as to Petitioner’s showing on Ground 2 but instead exercise our discretion to deny review.” slip op. at 21

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,593,492
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01561 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–14 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness grounds, and institution would be inefficient.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “In claim 1, “server” first appears in limitation 1b’s recitation of “a server.” Ex. 1001, 21:27–28. Every subsequent mention of “server” in claim 1 recites “the server.” Id. at 21:37, 21:40, 21:48, 21:51, 21:53, 21:60. Thus, grammatically, each time claim 1 recites “the server,” it refers back to the same “server” as in all previous recitations. Accordingly, claim 1’s plain meaning refers to the same server each and every time it recites “server.” See Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, --- F.4th ---, 2023 WL 2778774 *3–4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2023) (explaining claim language reciting element with definite article refers to same element previously recited) (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Harari v. Lee, 655 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Neither party argues that any reason exists to construe claim 1’s recitations of “a server” and “the server” differently from their plain meanings. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. We construe every one of claim 1’s recitations of “server” as referring to the same server (the “same-server requirement”).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier. As discussed above in Section II.B, we construe claim 1’s recitations of “the server” as all limited to the same server. Thus, as Petitioner contemplated, “the server” recited in limitation 1i is “limited to the same server as in antecedent [limitations 1e–1f].” Pet. 30. Petitioner inadequately supports its position that “Fletchall teaches that also.” Id. at 30–31. Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s explanations do not persuasively support their position that Fletchall teaches product database (121) and payment server (130) are the same server.4 Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212. For example, the observation that product database (121) and payment server (130) are part of system (100) and can communicate with one another via computer network (120) does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212; Prelim. Resp. 24. As Patent Owner 4 Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Shamos have some other basis for contending that Fletchall teaches using the same server in performing the actions recited in limitations 1f and 1i, they do not support that view with sufficiently persuasive evidence or explanation. argues, following Petitioner’s reasoning would lead to the untenable conclusion that any two components of system (100) that can communicate with one another via computer network (120), including mobile device (104) and product database (121), would be part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s contentions unpersuasive. We also find unavailing Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s observation that “Fletchall teaches that the product database 121 can be hosted on a merchant server . . . and be part of the common system 100 that includes payment server 130.” Pet. 31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 211. Hosting product database (121) on a merchant server does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Nor does including product database (121) and payment server (130) within system (100).” slip op. at 23

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier. As discussed above in Section II.B, we construe claim 1’s recitations of “the server” as all limited to the same server. Thus, as Petitioner contemplated, “the server” recited in limitation 1i is “limited to the same server as in antecedent [limitations 1e–1f].” Pet. 30. Petitioner inadequately supports its position that “Fletchall teaches that also.” Id. at 30–31. Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s explanations do not persuasively support their position that Fletchall teaches product database (121) and payment server (130) are the same server.4 Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212. For example, the observation that product database (121) and payment server (130) are part of system (100) and can communicate with one another via computer network (120) does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212; Prelim. Resp. 24. As Patent Owner 4 Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Shamos have some other basis for contending that Fletchall teaches using the same server in performing the actions recited in limitations 1f and 1i, they do not support that view with sufficiently persuasive evidence or explanation. argues, following Petitioner’s reasoning would lead to the untenable conclusion that any two components of system (100) that can communicate with one another via computer network (120), including mobile device (104) and product database (121), would be part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s contentions unpersuasive. We also find unavailing Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s observation that “Fletchall teaches that the product database 121 can be hosted on a merchant server . . . and be part of the common system 100 that includes payment server 130.” Pet. 31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 211. Hosting product database (121) on a merchant server does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Nor does including product database (121) and payment server (130) within system (100).” slip op. at 23

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “functions (VTSAs) of the server 111, the server 130, and merchant server hosting the product database 121 into the same server.” Pet. 41. As explained above in Sections II.C.3.a–c, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing unpatentability of either of challenged independent claims 1 and 10 or any of challenged dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8, 9, and 11–14. Considering this, to the extent Petitioner’s arguments and evidence may demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of dependent claim 5 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier, we do not find that instituting inter partes review would use the Board’s or the parties’ resources efficiently. See 35 U.S.C. 316(b).” slip op. at 27

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2022-00888 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution: Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1–13, and trying claim 42 alone would be inefficient.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “institution that Elko discloses a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1 and Petitioner does not rely on Boll or Buck for teaching a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1, Petitioner does not establish sufficiently for purposes of institution that the combined disclosures in Elko, Boll, and Buck teach claim 1’s subject matter. See Pet. 23–25; Prelim. Reply 1–2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 55–58; supra § IV.D.4(a). Hence, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in proving claim 1 unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Elko, Boll, and Buck.” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “for purposes of institution that Elko discloses a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1. See Pet. 23–25, 36–38; Prelim. Reply 1–2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 55–58, 81–82. For forming the “first virtual microphone” and the “second virtual microphone” claim 1 recites three different signals: “a first signal,” “a second signal,” and “a first intermediate signal” formed by applying a filter to “the first signal.” Ex. 1001, 37:5–9, 37:16–19. “Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.” Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,” slip op. at 30

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “for purposes of institution that Elko discloses a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1. See Pet. 23–25, 36–38; Prelim. Reply 1–2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 55–58, 81–82. For forming the “first virtual microphone” and the “second virtual microphone” claim 1 recites three different signals: “a first signal,” “a second signal,” and “a first intermediate signal” formed by applying a filter to “the first signal.” Ex. 1001, 37:5–9, 37:16–19. “Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.” Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,” slip op. at 30

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “the ’213 patent. Pet. 3, 23–83. As discussed above, Petitioner fails to satisfy the “reasonable likelihood” institution standard for four of the five challenges and thirteen of the fourteen challenged claims. See supra §§ IV.D–IV.E. At best, Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” institution standard for only one of the five challenges and only one of the 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. fourteen challenged claims. See supra § IV.F. These circumstances weigh in favor of exercising our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. See, e.g., Netscout Sys., Inc. v. Longhorn HD LLC, IPR2021-01258, Paper 11 at 23–24 (PTAB Feb. 10, 2022) (exercising discretion to deny institution); Sling TV L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01391, Paper 7 at 25–27 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2020) (exercising discretion to deny institution).” slip op. at 38

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,321,213
• Ideavillage Products Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.VInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2021-00116 · APJ Ken B Barrett · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because eight grounds failed the threshold showing and the remaining lack-of-ornamentality ground was marginal, making trial inefficient.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Here, Petitioner advances nine challenges against the claim of the ’346 patent. Pet. 8. As discussed above, we determine that, on this record, Petitioner has not met its burden for institution under eight grounds—an on-sale bar ground, six obviousness grounds, and an indefiniteness ground. Additionally, we determine that the ninth ground— the challenge based on the alleged lack of ornamentality—is marginal, at 5 We acknowledge that SAS and Harmonic address inter partes reviews, but see no reason to interpret differently § 324(a), the statute governing post-grant reviews. 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial. 7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf best. Based on the particular facts of this proceeding, instituting a trial with respect to all grounds based on evidence and arguments directed only to the one ornamentality ground would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. Cf. Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9, 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Thus, we do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 26

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Under the Office Guidance, “if the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB will institute on all challenges raised in the petition.” Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26, 2018).6 When a petition fails to satisfy the “more likely than not” institution standard as to some challenges, the Board evaluates “all the challenges and determine[s] whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system, the entire petition should be denied.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide7 64 (Nov. 2019) (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 316(b), 326(b)). Here, Petitioner advances nine challenges against the claim of the ’346 patent. Pet. 8. As discussed above, we determine that, on this record, Petitioner has not met its burden for institution under eight grounds—an on-sale bar ground, six obviousness grounds, and an indefiniteness ground. Additionally, we determine that the ninth ground— the challenge based on the alleged lack of ornamentality—is marginal, at 5 We acknowledge that SAS and Harmonic address inter partes reviews, but see no reason to interpret differently § 324(a), the statute governing post-grant reviews. 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial. 7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf best. Based on the particular facts of this proceeding, instituting a trial with respect to all grounds based on evidence and arguments directed only to the one ornamentality ground would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. Cf. Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9, 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Thus, we do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The POSITA relating to the subject matter of the D’346 patent would possess [a] Bachelor’s degree in industrial design (or a related or equivalent field) and at least ten (10) years of research or work experience related to designing, developing, specifying, testing or analyzing multi-component consumer products (or supervising the same), with experience related to handheld consumer electronic products. Pet. 14. For purposes of this decision, we assume Petitioner is referring to the designer of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1216 (CCPA 1981) (“In design cases we will consider the fictitious person identified in § 103 as ‘one of ordinary skill in the art’ to be the designer of ordinary capability who designs articles of the type presented in the application.”). Patent Owner has not filed a preliminary response and therefore, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the designer of ordinary skill in the art. Based on the limited record in front of us, we determine that Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the designer of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “incorrect standard, but also lacks credibility because it is internally inconsistent with other parts of his testimony. Mr. Fletcher testifies that it is his understanding that indefiniteness is viewed through the perspective of the ordinary observer, stating the following: I understand that an ordinary observer must be able to understand the scope of an invention with reasonable certainty. If not, a design is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. It is my understanding that errors and inconsistencies between drawings of a design patent can be indefinite, and thus invalid, if an ordinary observer cannot discern the overall appearance of the claimed design without resorting to conjecture or speculation. Ex. 1003 ¶ 27 (emphasis added). However, his opinions regarding indefiniteness all are in terms of the “POSITA.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–58; see, e.g., id. ¶ 32 (“The D’346 Patent is indefinite due to the inclusion of conflicting views, which would prevent a POSITA from understanding the claimed design as drawn. . . . A POSITA cannot discern from the D’346 Patent figures what design is actually being claimed.”). Casting further doubt on the reliability of his testimony, Mr. Fletcher does not articulate any definition for the POSITA, which is a necessary foundation for his opinions.4 Mr. Fletcher does not refer to the perspective of the ordinary observer (or even one skilled in the art, viewing the design as would an ordinary observer) in his opinions regarding indefiniteness (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32– 58), and we decline to assume his references to the unadorned “POSITA” implicitly encompass the perspective of the ordinary observer. Thus, Mr. Fletcher’s testimony regarding indefiniteness is unhelpful because it utilizes the incorrect perspective.” slip op. at 20

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
• BJ Energy Solutions, LLC v. Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2021 · PGR2021-00060 · APJ Ryan H Flax · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show claims 1–7 likely unpatentable, and a possible § 112(a) issue for claims 8–9 did not justify instituting on all claims and grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “not demonstrated with particularity that it is more likely than not that most claims challenged in the petition are unpatentable under the asserted grounds. Although there is a reasonable argument that claims 8 and 9 may be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as discussed above, this analysis is applicable to only these two dependent claims under a single ground for unpatentability, leaving Petitioner’s other ten grounds insufficient regarding independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–7. As discussed above, instituting trial under these circumstances would not be an efficient use of the Board’s or the parties’ time and resources. See Chevron, IPR2018- 00923, Paper 9, 10–11; Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7, 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Our decision at this stage derives from our review of the record presented. In accordance with the Court’s decision in SAS (138 S. Ct. at 1359– 60) and Office guidance, we deny institution of a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’631 patent on any grounds alleged by Petitioner. This decision does not reflect a final determination on the patentability of any claim.” slip op. at 66

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Even when a petitioner satisfies the minimum statutory institution standard (e.g., demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to one or more claims in an inter partes review or that it is more likely than not that at least one claim is unpatentable in a post-grant review), institution of review remains discretionary. SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018); Harmonic, Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“First of all, the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). Under such circumstances, the Board takes into account other considerations, including efficiency and fundamental fairness for all parties. See Adaptics Limited v. Perfect Co., IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 at 17 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2019) (informative); Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 84 FR 64280, 53– 63 (2019) (addressing various considerations at institution phase, including efficiency and fundamental fairness for all parties).1 We conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated in the petition that it is more likely than not that challenged claims 1–7 are unpatentable under any asserted grounds for unpatentability. Although it is a closer question as to whether Petitioner has demonstrated it is more likely than not that dependent claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable based on a single asserted unpatentability ground under § 112, we determine based on the record here that instituting a trial with respect to all challenged claims under all eleven asserted grounds for unpatentability is not an efficient use of the Board’s or the parties’ time and resources. Therefore, we do not institute post-grant review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60 (requiring institution on all claims, if any); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 55 (providing guidance in view of SAS).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “to read the concept of “flush with” into the claims. We agree with Petitioner’s position that such an interpretation is not supported by the ’631 patent’s written description, which illustrates and describes two embodiments, each having a turbine engine and reduction gearbox configured to be flush with one another, but refers to only the configuration of Embodiment 1 as being “directly connected” and refers to the configuration of Embodiment 2 as being merely “connected.” See Ex. 1001, 5:27–28, 5:62–6:2, Figs. 2, 3; see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 63 (Patent Owner’s expert witness confirming there is a difference between merely “connected” and “directly connected”). Thus, the intrinsic record supports a conclusion that the concept of “directly connected” is not related to whether one component is “flush with” another component. This disclosure of the ’631 patent also illuminates the meaning of “directly connected.” As shown in Embodiment 2, something may be connected with another thing even if there are intervening components, e.g., a transmission shaft or coupling; however, as shown in Embodiment 1, the ’631 patent uses the term “directly connected” only where no such intervening components are disclosed. Ex. 1001, 5:15– 6:19, Figs. 2, 3. Besides the guidance provided with respect to the embodiments discussed above, the ’631 patent does not otherwise expressly define the term “directly connected.” See generally Ex. 1001. Thus, we consider what the ordinarily skilled artisan would consider to be its ordinary and customary meaning. In this respect, Patent Owner also uses the word “uninterrupted” to describe “directly connected.” See Prelim. Resp. 6; see also Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 61–71. We conclude based on this record that the concept of “uninterrupted” is more apt than the concept of “flush with,” and find it to be a better description for the ordinary and customary meaning of “directly connected.” For example, the ’631 patent describes, in Embodiment 1, “the turbine engine 19 is connected to the plunger pump 18.” Ex. 1001, 5:26–27 (emphasis added). However, it is without question that Embodiment 1 positions a reduction gearbox between the turbine engine and plunger pump; thus, the engine and pump may be connected, but they are not directly connected. See, e.g., Fig. 2. On the other hand, regarding this same Embodiment 1, the ’631 patent describes that “the turbine engine 19 is directly connected to an input end of the reduction gearbox 24,” and there are no components illustrated or described as being between the turbine engine and reduction gearbox. Id. at 5:28–30 (emphasis added), Fig. 3. The connection between the turbine engine and reduction gearbox shown in Embodiment 1 is more aptly described as being uninterrupted. Thus, this illuminates the meaning of “directly connected.” In view of the above, we ascribe to the term “directly connected” its ordinary and customary meaning as it would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, and we find that ordinary and customary meaning to require that the turbine engine and reduction gearbox are connected with nothing intervening there-between so that their connection is uninterrupted.” slip op. at 29

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s evidence shows that the Apollo 1 apparatus has two gearboxes and a clutch between its turbine engine and plunger pump, thus the Apollo 1 does not meet the claim limitation “the plunger pump is a plunger pump integrated with a reduction gearbox, the turbine engine is directly connected to an input end of the reduction gearbox integrated on the plunger pump.” Ex. 1001, 6:51–54. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1017 is explained by Mr. Zhang11 as having these two gearboxes and clutch, where at least one of the gearboxes and the clutch forecloses the system from having a single reduction gearbox that is both integrated on a pump and directly connected to a turbine engine. Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 8–12. Petitioner presents no evidence contradicting Mr. Zhang’s understanding of the Apollo 1 configuration and, notably never attempted to explain exactly what is shown in the above-reproduced photograph from its own Exhibit 1017, even when given the opportunity to address Mr. Zhang’s testimony in its Reply. See generally Reply.” slip op. at 50

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,865,631

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.