• Digital Global Systems, Inc. v. Deepsig Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00194 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding no reasonable likelihood for the remaining claims except claim 13, whose potential success did not justify instituting trial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent and at least two years of experience working with radio communication systems and machine learning.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description at this stage of the proceeding. We adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 4

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

    “the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 16. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 4–6, 12, 14, and 16–22 would have been obvious over Jüschke and Holt. Petitioner may satisfy its burden for claim 13, but, as discussed below, that would not impact our decision to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. See Section II.F.” slip op. at 16

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “inter partes review. SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 366 (2018). Specifically, “[i]f a panel determines that a petition meets the standards for institution in relation to fewer than all the challenges presented, . . . the panel will evaluate all the challenges and determine whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system, the entire petition should be denied.” See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 64 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/tpgnov.pdf. Here, thirteen challenged claims remain after Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer. Petitioner at most demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for one dependent claim, which has no claims depending therefrom. See Sections II.C–II.E. Thus, based on the particular facts of this case, we find that instituting trial would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources, and we exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a). See Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018- 01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative); Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,777,540
• 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
• Reed Semiconductor Corp. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00871 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim; it also found institution inefficient based on Ground 1 alone.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. 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 person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 12

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

    “On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. D. The Alleged Unpatentability of Claims 1, 11, and 12 as Anticipated by TI,” slip op. at 13

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

    “establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’608 patent. IV. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 39

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

    “Here, Petitioner advances five challenges with four directed to the same three independent claims. Pet. 3. We, for the reasons discussed below, determine that Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Grounds 2 through 5. We further determine that, based on the particular facts of this proceeding, instituting a trial with respect to all grounds and all the challenged claims based on evidence and arguments directed only to Ground 1 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, even if Petitioner met the requisite burden for institution as to Ground 1, we would exercise our discretion and not institute an inter partes review. E. The Alleged Anticipation of Claims 1, 11, and 12 by Galinski (Ground 2)” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,590,608
• 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
• Lumenis Be Ltd. v. BTL Healthcare Technologies A.S.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · IPR2021-01275 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution, finding the petition deficient on most challenged claims and declining review because it could at best succeed on two of fourteen claims and two of three grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “On the current record, we find Petitioner’s contentions that the skilled artisan would have had “two or more” years of experience to be too vague as it encompasses skill levels beyond the proposal level without a defined limit. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s proposal except we do not adopt the “or more” terminology above. We determine that with our changes Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’321 patent Specification and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “C. Claim Construction We construe the challenged claims by applying the standard used in federal courts, in other words, “the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b),” which is articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Neither party seeks claim construction other than the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms. See Pet. 9; see generally Prelim. Resp.” slip op. at 10

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

    “to deny a petition “even when the petition includes at least one claim subject to a challenge that otherwise meets the criteria for institution.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide11 at 64; see also 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019). The Petition consists of challenges to fourteen claims, each challenged under at least two different grounds of unpatentability, and a total of three grounds of unpatentability. See Pet. 6. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating (1) obviousness of claims 1–7 and 10–14 over Simon alone; (2) obviousness of claims 1–7 and 10–14 over the combination of Burnett ’870 and Magstim; and (3) obviousness of claims 10–14 over the combination of Simon and Burnett ’870. See supra §§ III.D–III.E. Assuming without deciding that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that claims 8 and 9 would have been obvious over Simon alone or Simon and Burnett ’870, Petitioner at best could succeed in two of fourteen challenged claims and in two of three grounds. Under the circumstances presented—where 11 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. grounds even though Petitioner could at best succeed in two of fourteen challenged claims and in two of three grounds—we determine it would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources to institute review. See Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10– 11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); see also Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Accordingly, we exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to decline to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 33

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

    “Upon consideration of Burnett ’870, including Burnett ’870’s description of “activating two coils ‘differentially’” and the disclosures of Magstim relied on by Petitioner, we are not persuaded that they support using two capacitors or energy storage devices. Instead, the disclosures of Burnett ’870, Burnett ’185, and Magstim are consistent with Patent Owner’s assertions that the Petition demonstrates a teaching of only a single capacitor.” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,632,321
• Decurtis LLC v. Carnival CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00782 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–18 and 20 and declining to reach claim 19.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) for the ʼ184 patent is a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related subject matter, plus at least two years of professional experience in the field of computer networks, wireless communications, or a similar field. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–43). Petitioner elaborates that “more experience would compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not provided an assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is supported by the Almeroth Declaration and is consistent with the ’184 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “B. CLAIM INTERPRETATION The Petition explains that “Petitioner and its expert have applied the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms of the challenged claims.” Pet. 8. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not propose any explicit claim constructions. We do not discern a need to construe expressly any claim language. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 10

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

    “limitation 1[d] means Barry inherently discloses limitation 1[d], Petitioner also does not support that position. Establishing inherent disclosure of a limitation requires showing that the limitation necessarily results from the prior art disclosure. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.”). Petitioner does not allege or demonstrate that a “unique identifier of a portable guest device” necessarily results from the disclosure of Soleimani’s paragraph 175, much less that such an identifier is necessarily associated with location and a timestamp. As noted above, the Petition states that “[i]dentifiers may be associated with location and timestamp.” (Pet. 26 (emphasis added)). Because Petitioner does not support its position that “Barry discloses” limitations 1[d] and 7[d] and does not argue that limitations 1[d] and limitation 7[d] would have been obvious, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Patent argues that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references’ teachings. Patent Owner first argues that Petitioner has not demonstrated a motivation to combine Berg with Soleimani. Prelim. Resp. 31–33. Patent Owner then argues that Petitioner has not demonstrated a motivation to modify Soleimani with the teachings of Brulé. Id. at 34. With respect to this issue, weighing the parties’ arguments, we see some merit in Petitioner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Soleimani, Berg, and Brulé. We do not further address the merits of Petitioner’s challenge to claim 19. As explained below in Section III, given that Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to nearly all of the challenged claims, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,045,184
• Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Company / Helmerich & Payne Technologies, LLC et al. v. Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 21, 2021 · IPR2021-00621 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on at least 18 claims, and review of all 19 would be inefficient.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2

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

    “the monitored toolface angle, in and of itself, is indicative of a difference between the actual and desired toolface orientations as required by limitation 1[a]. Although Petitioner and Mr. Sharma point to comparing the monitored toolface angle with the tool face angle selected to achieve a desired trajectory for the bore hole, they do not identify any such comparison disclosed in Haci. Nor do they identify adequately any disclosure that Haci’s system displays or otherwise provides both the desired and measured toolface angles to the driller such that the measured toolface angle display, in conjunction with a desired toolface angle display, is indicative of the difference therebetween. At best, Petitioner and Mr. Sharma assert that the measured toolface angle could be used by the driller to determine the difference between the actual and desired toolface angles. Claim 1, however, requires the drilling operation parameter itself, which Petitioner maps to the measured toolface angle, to be indicative of the difference between the actual and desired toolface orientations.” slip op. at 21

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “institute review or don’t.” SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1355. When a petition fails to meet the reasonable likelihood 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.” See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 64 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 316(b), 326(b)). In determining whether to institute in circumstances such as those presented here, we take into account the efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. See Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (designated informative); Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (designated informative).” slip op. at 27

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

    “Based on the record, we determine that no explicit construction of terms is needed to resolve the issues presented to reach a decision on institution. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,823,655
• 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
• Vizio, Inc. v. Polaris Powerled Technologies, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00043 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing but denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “We have considered Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and, for the reasons set forth below, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, but we are not persuaded to change our ultimate conclusion to deny institution of inter partes review. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. When rehearing a decision on petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus.” slip op. at 3

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “III. DISCUSSION OF THE REQUEST FOR REHEARING On May 4, 2020, we issued our Decision denying institution of inter partes review based upon: (1) the advanced stage of the California District Court proceeding; (2) the investment of time and resources by the District Court and the parties in the California District Court proceeding; (3) overlap in the invalidity theories that Petitioner is pursuing here and in the California District Court proceeding; and (4) overlap in the claims challenged in the California District Court proceeding. Inst. Dec. 6–12. In the Decision, we did not reach any of the ten substantive grounds for patentability. See generally Inst. Dec. Rather, the denial of institution was solely based on our findings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id.” slip op. at 4

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

    “review under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and 37 C.F.R. §42.4. Institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2012); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”) For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the arguments and evidence of record, we are not persuaded to change our ultimate conclusion to deny institution of inter partes review.7” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenDenied

    “The petition must identify with particularity each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) (content of petitions); 37 C.F.R. 42.104 (content of petition). Petitioner’s conclusory statements, without more, are irreparably lacking in detail. Petitioner does not provide any analysis to support the assertion of obviousness over Oki. In fact, Petitioner instead asserts that Oki discloses all of the limitations in each of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 15, 16, and 18, so it is unclear what modification, if any, is required to Oki, or even the basis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds. E.g., Pet. 28– 33. Petitioner does not clearly point out the differences between the claimed invention and Oki. Nor does Petitioner explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed subject matter obvious in spite of those differences. Petitioner has not provided sufficient reasoning or facts on which to base a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, in light of Oki’s disclosure, to modify Oki to meet the claim limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on this ground of unpatentability.” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,223,117

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.