• 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
• Blackberry Corp. v. Facebook, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 17, 2020 · IPR2019-01593 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and left in place its discretionary denial of the petition, finding no misapprehension or oversight in its assessment of the claim 23 challenges.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the “request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” The burden here, therefore, lies with Petitioner to show we misapprehended or overlooked the matters it requests” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “Partes Review. Paper 7 (“Dec.”). We exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and denied the Petition based on our determination that Petitioner has only demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to three claim challenges (out of 17).1 Dec. 39−40. Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing challenging several aspects of our Decision. Paper 8 (Req. Reh’g). In particular, Petitioner challenges our determination of the scope of “Global Positioning System data” (hereinafter “GPS Data”) a term recited in independent claim 23. Req. Reh’g 3−6. Petitioner further challenges our determination concerning the term “range of acceptable values,” recited in claim 23. Id. at 10−12. Thus, Petitioner argues, based on the correct interpretation of “GPS data” and “range of acceptable values,” we should have instituted trial because it demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to four or five out of eight challenged claims.2 Req. Reh’g 13.” slip op. at 2

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

    “types of information that are GPS data, such as idle time. The portions of the Specification that Petitioner now cites, however, do not show that the GPS data is not, at a minimum, location information. As we stated in our Decision, other types of data may be transmitted from the remote unit to the central location, but the GPS data does refer to location information. Dec. 9. Moreover, Petitioner points out that the Specification discusses vehicle speed, idle time, movement, and actual windshield time as examples of calculated values, arguably from GPS location and time information. Req. Reh’g 3. But the Specification actually refers to these values to determine exceptions to be logged and noted (Ex. 1001, 4:41−49, 4:65−67, 6:1−3), which proves only that the system may use non-GPS data, in combination with GPS data, to determine exceptions. We acknowledge that claim 23’s recitation of GPS data could seem, at first blush, to potentially encompass every comparison that the Specification explains. Claim 23, however, must be interpreted in a manner that accounts for the recited two-part structure. In the first part, the claim recites a first comparison that involves the GPS data; and in the second part, the claim recites the second comparison that does not mention GPS data. Our analysis of the term GPS data in our Decision did not assume that the two comparisons involved the same data, e.g., GPS data. This is where Petitioner disagrees with our assessment, because it urges us to construe GPS data as including values and information recited in the second comparison, i.e., the idle time or recited “stationary time.” Petitioner’s position cannot be correct because the claim does not require that the “stationary time” also be GPS data. Further, the comparison that claim 23 recites with respect to GPS data does not mention exceptions at all, so it does not follow that all the Specification’s descriptions of exceptions encompass GPS data. The second comparison recited in claim 23 (comparing the stationary time to a predetermined stationary time), in contrast, is expressly performed for the purpose of noting an exception. Claim 23 (“if the length of time that the remote unit remains in a stationary position is greater than the predetermined stationary time, the system notes an exception.”). Thus, Petitioner, even in arguing for the first time its claim construction position, has not shown that derived data must also be GPS data according to the plain reading of the claim language. Consequently, having reviewed Petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that GPS data means data that is derived from and representative of GPS coordinates and time stamps, as argued for the first time in the Request for Rehearing.3” slip op. at 4

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “construction issue. Patent Owner explicitly addressed the construction of the term, a fact we acknowledged in our Decision. Dec. 8 (citing Prelim. Resp. 29−30). Petitioner did not address the scope of the term explicitly or implicitly. And it was not apparent from any of the now-cited portions of the Petition that Petitioner contended a scope of the term to include data that is derived from and representative of GPS coordinates and time stamps. Petitioner’s argument attempts to characterize its omission of a contention regarding claim construction as an oversight on our part. The argument is not persuasive as it is Petitioner’s burden to show in the Petition its contentions regarding how the challenged claim is to be construed and how, so construed, the claim is rendered obvious by the asserted references. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)−(4). Therefore, we could not have either overlooked Petitioner’s position on claim construction, since none was provided, or misapprehended a position of claim scope not made explicit.” slip op. at 3

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,356,841
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2019 · IPR2019-00060 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing only to address the overlooked construction dispute, but again denied institution because Jensen did not teach “mobile protection code.”

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “(“Dec. on Inst.”). The panel concluded that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the asserted obviousness grounds because, for a particular ground, Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Jensen1 teaches “mobile protection code.” Dec. on Inst. 11−12.2 Petitioner has filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 8 (“Req. Reh’g”). Petitioner argues that the scope for the claim term “mobile protection code” was in dispute, and that we “failed to resolve the key claim construction dispute between the parties.” Id. at 1. According to Petitioner, rehearing is warranted to resolve the claim construction dispute and “fix the plain error in the Institution Decision.” Id. We are persuaded that in failing to address Petitioner’s construction, we overlooked the matter raised in Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed infra, after giving due consideration to Petitioner’s argument, we are persuaded that our decision to deny institution was correct, and therefore we deny the request insofar as it calls upon us to institute trial.” slip op. at 2

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

    “(“Dec. on Inst.”). The panel concluded that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the asserted obviousness grounds because, for a particular ground, Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Jensen1 teaches “mobile protection code.” Dec. on Inst. 11−12.2 Petitioner has filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 8 (“Req. Reh’g”). Petitioner argues that the scope for the claim term “mobile protection code” was in dispute, and that we “failed to resolve the key claim construction dispute between the parties.” Id. at 1. According to Petitioner, rehearing is warranted to resolve the claim construction dispute and “fix the plain error in the Institution Decision.” Id. We are persuaded that in failing to address Petitioner’s construction, we overlooked the matter raised in Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed infra, after giving due consideration to Petitioner’s argument, we are persuaded that our decision to deny institution was correct, and therefore we deny the request insofar as it calls upon us to institute trial.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “1 Protection Wrappers: A Simple and Portable Sandbox for Untrusted Applications, Proceedings on the 8th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop on Support for Composing Distributed Applications, filed in the record as Exhibit 1006. 2 We also exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d) and denied institution. Petitioner does not challenge the exercise of discretion in this request for rehearing.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “1 Protection Wrappers: A Simple and Portable Sandbox for Untrusted Applications, Proceedings on the 8th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop on Support for Composing Distributed Applications, filed in the record as Exhibit 1006. 2 We also exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d) and denied institution. Petitioner does not challenge the exercise of discretion in this request for rehearing.” slip op. at 2

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,647,633
• Google LLC v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 29, 2018 · IPR2017-02067 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution: it declined review of claims 1–12, 14–17, 25, and 26 under §§ 315(d) and 325(d), and found no reasonable likelihood for claims 13, 18–24, and 27.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “Here, our exercise of discretion to deny institution under §§ 315(d) and 325(d) is warranted for several reasons. To start with, the previous IPRs and the present Petition rely on Zydney as the primary reference against which the majority of the claim limitations are mapped. Petitioner has proffered no reasoning regarding how it has relied on Zydney in any way that differs materially from the previous IPRs. And Petitioner’s reliance on different secondary references does not remedy this shortcoming. Moreover, Petitioner, here, does not explain whether the secondary references in this case are used in a different manner or add anything materially different to the secondary references used in the previous IPRs. Further, Zydney is being considered on the merits in pending IPRs. In fact, two trials regarding the ’433 patent are ongoing, with Zydney as the hallmark, i.e., a distinctive feature, of those trials. See IPR2017-01427 and IPR2017-01428. Under these circumstances, we look to Petitioner to provide some reason that convinces us to institute yet another trial that features Zydney as prominently as the previously presented IPRs. Again, if there was a manner in which Petitioner here distinguishably relied on Zydney, Petitioner did not proffer that fact explicitly. Moreover, the time of filing of this Petition leads us to conclude that Petitioner gained the benefit of Patent Owner’s preliminary responses in the previous IPRs. Patent Owner filed those responses on September 9, 2017. Three days later Petitioner filed the instant petition. Petitioner, as the party with the knowledge of this fact, failed to allege that it did not gain the benefit of the preliminary responses in previous IPRs. We look to Petitioner to explain its delay in its filing. Petitioner provides no reason here. Finally, although not a dispositive fact, we note that in the previous IPRs, Patent Owner requested authorization to file a motion to amend challenged claims of the ’433 patent. This fact raises concerns regarding the complexity and potential for inconsistency inherent in allowing this proceeding to occur in tandem with ongoing trials that arise in large part from the considerable role Zydney plays each proceeding. Further, we are concerned not only with ensuring consistency across multiple trials focused on Zydney, but also with administrative efficiency because significant resources of the Board would be consumed reconciling arguments, issues, and evidence across multiple, independent trials,3 especially in light of the forthcoming motion to amend in the previous IPRs. Cf. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (indicating an agency, when deciding whether to take action in a particular matter, must determine whether its resources are best spent on one matter or another).” slip op. at 9

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “authority, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122, to issue “any appropriate order regarding the additional matter[, i.e., this proceeding,] including providing for the stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination or any such matter.” See 35 U.S.C. § 315(d). We recognize that in exercising our discretion we determine the proper course of conduct in a proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.5) in a manner consistent with securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)). Here, our exercise of discretion to deny institution under §§ 315(d) and 325(d) is warranted for several reasons. To start with, the previous IPRs and the present Petition rely on Zydney as the primary reference against which the majority of the claim limitations are mapped. Petitioner has proffered no reasoning regarding how it has relied on Zydney in any way that differs materially from the previous IPRs. And Petitioner’s reliance on different secondary references does not remedy this shortcoming. Moreover, Petitioner, here, does not explain whether the secondary references in this case are used in a different manner or add anything materially different to the secondary references used in the previous IPRs. Further, Zydney is being considered on the merits in pending IPRs. In fact, two trials regarding the ’433 patent are ongoing, with Zydney as the hallmark, i.e., a distinctive feature, of those trials. See IPR2017-01427 and IPR2017-01428. Under these circumstances, we look to Petitioner to provide some reason that convinces us to institute yet another trial that features Zydney as prominently as the previously presented IPRs. Again, if there was a manner in which Petitioner here distinguishably relied on Zydney, Petitioner did not proffer that fact explicitly.” slip op. at 9

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

    “likelihood of prevailing with regard to its contention that claim 13 is anticipated by Zydney. In particular, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Zydney’s software agent “displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode.” This is an anticipation challenge, which requires that the art disclose each and every limitation of the claim, in the same arrangement as claimed. Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Board cannot fill in the gaps and consider what an ordinary artisan might supplement or envisage. Net MoneyIn, 545 F.3d at 1372; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, 851 F.3d 1270, 1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (The Board is not permitted to “fill in missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision them.”). The Petition sets forth that Zydney teaches a “selectable control” because the software agent permits a number of distinct modes of communication and that the originator selects a delivery mode, i.e., intercom mode. Pet. 1718. But with regard to the display of the “selectable control,” Petitioner states that “Zydney plainly teaches that its software agent’s user interface displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode based on the connectivity status (e.g., status of the recipient) of an intended recipient.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58). In support, the Min Declaration mentions “display” in reference to selecting the recipients, stating, “Once the originator has selected the recipients from the display, Zydney’s system allows the originator to select a delivery option depending on which ‘core state’ the intended recipient is in—online or offline.” Id. This is insufficient support for demonstrating that Zydney discloses the display limitation of claim 13. Claim 13 recites that the “instant voice messaging application displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode.” Neither the Petition nor the Min Declaration addresses the display of the “selectable control for generating an instant voice message.” At best, the Min Declaration adduces to the display of a list of recipients and their selection. But there is no explanation as to the display of the “selectable control” in Zydney or citation of evidence that Zydney displays any selection such that it can generate a voice message in intercom mode. Without evidence that Zydney discloses the recited “display,” we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Zydney anticipates the claim. Therefore, Petitioner’s contention of unpatentability regarding claim 13 does not meet the reasonable likelihood institution threshold.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Board cannot fill in the gaps and consider what an ordinary artisan might supplement or envisage. Net MoneyIn, 545 F.3d at 1372; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, 851 F.3d 1270, 1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (The Board is not permitted to “fill in missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision them.”). The Petition sets forth that Zydney teaches a “selectable control” because the software agent permits a number of distinct modes of communication and that the originator selects a delivery mode, i.e., intercom mode. Pet. 1718. But with regard to the display of the “selectable control,” Petitioner states that “Zydney plainly teaches that its software agent’s user interface displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode based on the connectivity status (e.g., status of the recipient) of an intended recipient.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58). In support, the Min Declaration mentions “display” in reference to selecting the recipients, stating, “Once the originator has selected the recipients from the display, Zydney’s system allows the originator to select a delivery option depending on which ‘core state’ the intended recipient is in—online or offline.” Id. This is insufficient support for demonstrating that Zydney discloses the display limitation of claim 13. Claim 13 recites that the “instant voice messaging application displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode.” Neither the Petition nor the Min Declaration addresses the display of the “selectable control for generating an instant voice message.” At best, the Min Declaration adduces to the display of a list of recipients and their selection. But there is no explanation as to the display of the “selectable control” in Zydney or citation of evidence that Zydney displays any selection such that it can generate a voice message in intercom mode. Without evidence that Zydney discloses the recited “display,” we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Zydney anticipates the claim. Therefore, Petitioner’s contention of unpatentability regarding claim 13 does not meet the reasonable likelihood institution threshold.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,995,433

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.