- PTAB · Nov 7, 2025 · IPR2025-00988 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–14 because Samsung took alternative claim-construction positions in the Board and district court without explaining why.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“decision in Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 (Nov. 3, 2025 (“Revvo”)).12 Revvo provides that “when a petitioner takes alternative positions [on claim construction] before the Board and a district court, that petitioner should, at a minimum, explain why alternative positions are warranted.” Revvo at 3–4. On November 5, 2025, the Director of the Office issued an informative decision in Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025- 00340, Paper 18 (Nov. 5, 2025) (“Tesla”)). Tesla provides that: “Allowing a petitioner to advance a claim construction before the Board when that petitioner has made inconsistent indefiniteness arguments in district court fails to further, but instead detracts from, the Office’s goal of ‘providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.’” Id. at 4 (citing Revvo at 4–5). Tesla further provides that when a petitioner raises inconsistent invalidity challenges in two forums, “that petitioner is required to explain why those different positions are warranted.” Id. at 3 (citing Revvo at 3–5). In this proceeding, Petitioner takes alternative positions on claim construction before the Board and a district court, but fails to explain why alternative positions are warranted. Therefore, in accordance with Revvo and Tesla, we deny institution.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“CONCLUSION For the foregoing reason, we determine that trial should not be instituted on claims 1–14 of the ’281 patent. ORDER Upon consideration of the record before us, it is ORDERED that an inter partes review is not instituted.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“In the Petition, “Petitioner submits that no formal claim constructions are necessary.” Pet. 3. Petitioner does not discuss its position on claim construction in district court nor why alternative positions before the Board and the district court are warranted. See id.” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,687,281 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. KP Innovations 2, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,499,168 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 denialPatents in suitUS 7,856,520 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,803,435 - Decurtis LLC v. Carnival CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 denialPatents in suitUS 10,045,184 - Google LLC v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · 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. 1718. 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. 1718. 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 denialPatents 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.