• Google LLC v. Cellular South, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00877 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–11 because the Zhao-Kouzani combination did not sufficiently show a fractal representation based on landmarks.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). 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 “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’853 patent is unpatentable, and we do not institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2

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

    “generally known in the art, and that this is acknowledged by the ’853 patent. Pet. 40–41 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:40–44). Petitioner asserts that Kouzani touts the benefits of fractal models and that it would have been obvious to use Kouzani’s fractal model as the object model in Zhou. Pet 44 (asserting that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have therefore been motivated to implement Kouzani’s techniques in Zhao’s system”); see also id. 42–45. (entire argument). Patent Owner argues that Kouzani’s fractals would not result in the claimed limitation. Prelim. Resp. 21–23. In particular, Patent Owner points out that Kouzani’s fractals use a block-based fractal system, which do not include “a representation of the object based on landmarks associated with the object” as required by claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Even if Kouzani teaches fractals, claim 1 is not broadly claiming any fractal, but rather one that is “based on landmarks” (e.g., eyes, nose, etc.). See Ex. 1001, 13:53–57. The block-based system of Kouzani is based on abstract, repeated patterns of pixels, without regard to what the pixels represent. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 8 (describing a “search . . . through the domain pool to find a domain block whose contractive transformation best approximates the range block” and then storing all of the transformations that, together, “represent the compressed image of a person’s face”), Fig. 4 (showing example blocks). This is in contrast to looking for particular landmarks in the image. Thus, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Kouzani’s fractal is based on landmarks. In Petitioner’s ground, Petitioner asserts that Zhao already teaches the claimed landmarks (Pet. 39, citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58, 65), but Petitioner’s ground replaces or modifies the object model of Zhao with the fractals of Kouzani, which are not based on landmarks. Petitioner does not explain how Zhao’s modified model, now using a block-based fractal system, would still have the landmarks of Zhao’s original model. Even if it were obvious to include fractals, we are persuaded that the fractals included by Kouzani are not based on landmarks. Alternatively, if Petitioner is asserting merely to use fractals in Zhao’s models, then Petitioner has not sufficiently accounted for the particular fractals claimed and explained persuasively how merely using fractals in Zhao would lead to the claimed subject matter, i.e., fractals based on landmarks. In either event, Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the proposed combination satisfies the “fractal includes a representation of the object based on landmarks” limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Even if Kouzani teaches fractals, claim 1 is not broadly claiming any fractal, but rather one that is “based on landmarks” (e.g., eyes, nose, etc.). See Ex. 1001, 13:53–57. The block-based system of Kouzani is based on abstract, repeated patterns of pixels, without regard to what the pixels represent. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 8 (describing a “search . . . through the domain pool to find a domain block whose contractive transformation best approximates the range block” and then storing all of the transformations that, together, “represent the compressed image of a person’s face”), Fig. 4 (showing example blocks). This is in contrast to looking for particular landmarks in the image. Thus, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Kouzani’s fractal is based on landmarks. In Petitioner’s ground, Petitioner asserts that Zhao already teaches the claimed landmarks (Pet. 39, citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58, 65), but Petitioner’s ground replaces or modifies the object model of Zhao with the fractals of Kouzani, which are not based on landmarks. Petitioner does not explain how Zhao’s modified model, now using a block-based fractal system, would still have the landmarks of Zhao’s original model. Even if it were obvious to include fractals, we are persuaded that the fractals included by Kouzani are not based on landmarks. Alternatively, if Petitioner is asserting merely to use fractals in Zhao’s models, then Petitioner has not sufficiently accounted for the particular fractals claimed and explained persuasively how merely using fractals in Zhao would lead to the claimed subject matter, i.e., fractals based on landmarks. In either event, Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the proposed combination satisfies the “fractal includes a representation of the object based on landmarks” limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11

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

    “standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That is, “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1312–13 (quoting in Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). We do not need to construe any claim terms to reach a decision in this proceeding. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in controversy, and 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 6

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,126,853
• 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
• Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/SInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 8, 2025 · IPR2024-01497 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7 would have been obvious over Duan and Duan-I.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness.3 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’681 patent claims benefit of a May 6, 2005, filing date, which is before the effective date of the applicable AIA amendments. Ex. 1001, Code [63]. 3 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of secondary considerations in its Preliminary Response. Therefore, secondary considerations do not constitute part of our analysis herein. unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Abraham, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’681 patent “would have been knowledgeable regarding liquid cooling systems for computer systems, would have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, such as an B.S. (bachelor of science), or equivalent thereof, in electrical or mechanical engineering or a closely-related field, and would have possessed at least two or three years of experience in liquid cooling systems for computer systems, or in similar systems.” Pet. 17. Petitioner additionally contends a “person with less education but more relevant practical experience, depending on the nature of that experience and degree of exposure to liquid cooling systems for computer systems, could also qualify as a POSITA in the field of the ’681 patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 42). Patent Owner does not address the level of skill of the ordinary artisan. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’681 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner “does not believe any specific terms require construction and applies the plain meaning of all claim terms herein.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not address claim construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14

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

    “motivated to combine Duan and Duan-I in this manner, Petitioner argues that “given the known ‘compact trend of computer[s]’ recognized by Duan [], a POSITA would have been motivated to rotate Duan’s liquid driving module 2 (pump) counterclockwise by 90 degrees in Figure 7 to reduce the systems overall height in view of Duan-I.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 6; Ex. 1005 ¶ 57). Petitioner asserts that “[a]lthough modifying Duan in this fashion would require some minor reconstruction, doing so would reasonably be expected to result in success.” Id. Petitioner contends that “[t]he modification is well within a POSITA’s technical grasp, and would have predictably resulted in a modified system like the one [reproduced] below (double-sided chassis outlined in red).” Id. at 26–27. Petitioner provides the following graphical explanation, reproduced below, of how it arrives at this modified figure.” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,733,681
• Digital Global Systems, Inc. v. Deepsig Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 27, 2025 · IPR2025-00049 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Here, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Thus, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent degree 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 neededDecided for patent owner

    “B. Claim Construction In an inter partes review proceeding, a patent claim is construed using 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. 9–10. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. Claim 1 recites “generating a pre-distorted radio signal by processing the transmit radio signal using a nonlinear pre-distortion machine learning model.” Ex. 1001, 14:19–24. This portion of claim 1 requires processing a transmit signal using a machine learning model. Id. Claim 1 also recites “updating the model parameters based on a distance metric computed between the transmit radio signal and a received signal that is obtained from the one or more radio receivers.” Id. at 14:30–35. This portion of claim 1 requires updating model parameters based on a distance metric computed using a received signal obtained from a receiver. Id. Thus, together, these portions of claim 1 require updating parameters for a transmit model based on a distance metric computed using a signal obtained from a receiver.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,581,469
• Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v. Clo Virtual Fashion, IncInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00970 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–11 because the petition did not sufficiently explain why a skilled artisan would combine TUKATECH’s features with EZBRUSH.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Used in the Merits Analysis “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of non-obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 5

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

    “Petitioner’s expert provides no citation for his “smooth seam” or “pleated or ruffled effect at the seam” rationales. Indeed, Petitioner’s expert does not indicate that he has expertise regarding clothing, let alone seam formation on clothing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 3–13. As our Rules make clear, “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fab. Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Testimony proffered by a witness lacking the relevant technical expertise fails the standard of admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 702.”). Petitioner’s expert does not cite evidence in support of his statements, nor does he provide evidence that he has a background that indicates that he would intrinsically know such things to be true. On this record, we afford Petitioner’s expert’s testimony on the “length selection” rationales for providing a “smooth seam” and/or “pleated or ruffled effect at the seam” no weight. Ex. 1003 ¶ 61. For this reason, Petitioner’s obviousness position is untenable. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s expert provides no citation for his “smooth seam” or “pleated or ruffled effect at the seam” rationales. Indeed, Petitioner’s expert does not indicate that he has expertise regarding clothing, let alone seam formation on clothing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 3–13. As our Rules make clear, “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fab. Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Testimony proffered by a witness lacking the relevant technical expertise fails the standard of admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 702.”). Petitioner’s expert does not cite evidence in support of his statements, nor does he provide evidence that he has a background that indicates that he would intrinsically know such things to be true. On this record, we afford Petitioner’s expert’s testimony on the “length selection” rationales for providing a “smooth seam” and/or “pleated or ruffled effect at the seam” no weight. Ex. 1003 ¶ 61. For this reason, Petitioner’s obviousness position is untenable. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). Similarly, Petitioner asserts that adding “TUKATECH’s suggested techniques” to EZBRUSH “would be merely the application of known techniques to a known system ready for improvement to yield predictable results.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that applying the suggested user interface improvement from TUKATECH to EZBRUSH’s CAD system would have led to predictable and helpful results with a reasonable expectation of success.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). Similar to the discussion above, we have reviewed the cited paragraph of Petitioner’s expert’s declaration and find insufficient credible evidence supporting Petitioner’s naked assertions regarding what was an “application of known techniques to a known system ready for improvement to yield predictable results.” Pet. 43; Ex. 1003 ¶ 62. To the extent Petitioner is arguing that obviousness can be established merely by showing that EZBRUSH and TUKATECH are in the same field of endeavor (e.g., Pet. 43 (“both [are] directed toward CAD systems”)), we disagree. We are not aware of any authority supporting such an argument. Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why or how it would have been obvious to apply the length comparison information from the table of TUKATECH’s size reshaping feature to EZBRUSH in a manner that meets each step of the claim. Thus, Petitioner’s additional reasons for modifying EZBRUSH to implement TUKATECH’s sizing table are also untenable.” slip op. at 10

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

    “C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we apply the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That is, “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1312–13. We do not need to construe any claim terms to reach a decision in this proceeding. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in controversy, and 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 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,733,773
• Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v. Clo Virtual Fashion, IncInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00967 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show why a skilled artisan would have combined Niterra’s wire-length features with EZBRUSH’s clothing design software.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Used in the Merits Analysis “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of non-obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “The expert provides no citation for his “smooth seam” rationale. Moreover, Petitioner’s expert, who has extensive knowledge in CAD drawing systems (e.g., id. ¶ 3), does not indicate that he has expertise regarding clothing, let alone seam formation on clothing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 3–13. As our Rules make clear, “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fab. Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Testimony proffered by a witness lacking the relevant technical expertise fails the standard of admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 702.”). Petitioner’s expert does not cite evidence in support of his statement, nor does he provide evidence that he has a background that indicates that he would intrinsically know such things to be true. On this record, we afford Petitioner’s expert’s testimony on the “smooth seam” rationale no weight. For this reason, Petitioner’s obviousness position is untenable. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “asserts that it would have been obvious to add these features from Niterra’s circuit board designer into the clothing designer of EZBRUSH. Pet. 45–50. Petitioner asserts that the reason to do so is because “it would have been desirable to select the sewing segments to be equal in length when seeking a clean, smooth seam that prevents bunching or unintended stretching of the material.” Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). Petitioner then goes on to explain various benefits from adding these “smooth seam” features. Id. at 46–50. Patent Owner argues that “[Petitioner’s] rationale is completely rooted in hindsight” because nothing in the prior art describes a desire to seek a smooth seam. Prelim. Resp. 69. Turning back to the Petition, we see that Petitioner’s “smooth seam” rationale is underpinned by a citation to its expert declaration. Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). The expert, in turn, repeats the language from the Petition, but provides no explanation as to the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based. He states: A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have known that when using the resulting CAD system (EZBRUSH as modified by Corel and Thoemmes (detailed above)) to digitally “sew” two garment patterns together, selecting the sewing segments to be equal in length would have been desirable when seeking a clean, smooth seam that prevents bunching or unintended stretching of the material. Ex. 1003 ¶ 64.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelNot reached

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that: A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date (“POSITA”) would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in an engineering, computer science, graphic design, or a related field plus 2–3 years of work and/or research experience in the field of computer aided design (CAD) software. [Ex. ]1003, ¶23. Graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Id. Pet. 21. Patent Owner proposes a different standard: A [person of ordinary skill in the art] to which the ’355 Patent pertains would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, textile engineering, computer engineering, computer science, graphic design, or an equivalent degree, with at least 2–3 years of experience in software design for the creation of digital or virtual clothing. EX2001, ¶56. Prelim. Resp. 33. Notably, Patent Owner argues that the level of ordinary skill in the art includes experience specific to digital or virtual clothing and that Petitioner has omitted this critical aspect. Id. at 32. We need not define explicitly the level of ordinary skill in the art because Petitioner would fail to meet its evidentiary burden regardless of the definition of the level of skill adopted.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,410,355
• Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v. Clo Virtual Fashion, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00980 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving them obvious over Grinspun and Graphicxtras.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 314(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) as well as the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’448 Patent. We thus determine not to institute an inter partes review of any of the challenged claims on any of the grounds alleged in the Petition. A. Real Parties in Interest” slip op. at 2

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

    “The parties agree that no claim terms need to be construed for the purposes of a Decision on Institution, but disagree as to whether the preamble of method claim 1 is limiting. Petitioner argues that it is not, while Patent Owner argues that statements of intended purpose in the preamble to a method claim are generally construed as limiting. Pet. 31–32 (citing Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., 919 F.3d 1320, 1328–1330 (Fed. Cir. 2019)); Prelim. Resp. 19 (quoting Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Pharma. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1340 (Fed Cir. 2021)). We determine that we do not need to resolve this potential claim construction dispute between the parties. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and 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)). For the reasons discussed below, even if we adopt Petitioner’s position that the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting, Petitioner still has not established a reasonable likelihood of success regarding its challenge to claim 1.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in an engineering, computer science, graphic design, or a related field plus 2–3 years of work and/or research experience in the field of computer aided design (CAD) software.” Pet. 12. Petitioner asserts that “[g]raduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner largely agrees with Petitioner’s proposal, but argues that the relevant experience would have had to have been in “creating computer programs for virtual or digital clothing design” because general CAD software is not suitable for the purposes of virtual clothing design. Prelim. Resp. 18–19. We need not determine which definition is more consistent with the ’448 Patent and the asserted prior art. We have applied Petitioner’s definition in our analysis below. We determine that even under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to any of the claims challenged in the Petition, for the reasons discussed below. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8

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

    “First, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that either Grinspun or Graphicxtras teach taking measurements “of” a two-dimensional pattern, as described in the preamble of claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 20–23. Grinspun provides a 2D pattern in its Design Window 110, but does not measure any part of the 2D pattern. Id. at 20; Ex. 1004 at 17, 37–38, Fig. 1; see also Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 76–77 (Govindaraj Decl.). Graphicxtras teaches taking horizontal or vertical measurements between bounding boxes, but does not measure the distance between the actual outlines of the pattern pieces. Ex. 1005 (Graphicxtras); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 79–81. Even if the preamble is not considered to be limiting, the fact remains that neither reference discloses measuring a distance within a pattern piece, which is required by the claim language “determining a length of a line segment using the points . . . responsive to determining that the points are located in different pattern pieces[.]” Ex. 1001 at 18:3–4 (emphasis added); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 84–85. Second, Petitioner has not shown that either reference, alone or in combination, can determine whether two points are on the same pattern piece or different pattern pieces by affirmatively examining “attributes of areas” in which the points are located. Prelim. Resp. 27–29 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 87–90). The ’448 Specification indicates that a “measuring apparatus may determine that areas to which the two points A and B belong correspond to different pattern pieces based on the data structure corresponding to each of the two points A and B.” Ex. 1001 at 7:25–40. The data structure corresponding to each of the points may store information corresponding to each of the points in the form of a linked list, a tree, or a table, for example. The information corresponding to each of the points may include, for example, identification information of a pattern piece in which each of the points is positioned, identification of a line in a pattern piece in which each of the points is positioned, a coordinate of a point on a line of a pattern piece, and the like. Id. at 6:63–7:4. This is reflected in claim 1, which contains the limitation “determining a length of a line segment using the points based on the determined attributes of the areas, the determined length of the line segment changed to account for separation between the pattern pieces responsive to determining that the points are located in different pattern pieces[.]” Ex. 1001 at 17:66–18:4. The Grinspun-Graphicxtras combination does not do this. Rather, in the proposed combination the two points A and B are always on the edges of two different pattern pieces, and there is no disclosure of a set of data structures that would enable the proposed software to determine the location of the points in relation to the 2D pattern pieces depicted. Prelim. Resp. 27–29 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 90); see Pet. 35 (annotating Figure 1 of Ex. 1004). Third, because the line segment in the proposed combination is always between the edges of two different pattern pieces, the combination does not determine the “length of a line segment using the points based on the determined attributes of the areas” associated with the two points. Prelim. Resp. 41–42 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 91–93); Ex. 1001 at 17:62–65 (emphasis added); see also Pet. 40, 42, 44 (further annotating Figure 1 of Ex. 1004). Fourth, Petitioner misinterprets the claim language “the determined length of the line segment changed to account for separation between the pattern pieces” and does not does not even address the remainder of that claim element, “responsive to determining that the points are located in different pattern pieces.” See Ex. 1001 at 18:1–4 (emphasis added). This language does not mean that the user manually changes the length of the line segment by moving the pattern pieces. See Pet. 40–44. It means that the portion of the line segment that is in the empty space between the pattern pieces is subtracted, as shown in Figure 4 of the ’448 Patent, in order to determine the measurement of a portion of the 3D clothing to be created from the 2D pattern. Prelim. Resp. 40–41 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 94–95). We agree with and adopt the explanation of Patent Owner’s expert declarant, Dr. Govindaraj that: [T]he ’448 teaches repeatedly and the claims require that the patterns are fixed relative to one another, that the selected points are fixed, and that the line segments are fixed. The entire purpose of the claimed invention is to measure the length of a line segment in response to determining that the points are located in different pattern pieces, and then accounting for the “white space” or “separation between” the two patterns. Ex. 2001 ¶ 95. Patent Owner raises additional arguments as to why claim 1 would not” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,222,448
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01086 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 or 18 were obvious, including because it did not adequately support the proposed current-modulation modification.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain or address sufficiently how Nakamura performs current modulation. Although Nakamura discloses modulating the carrier wave transmitted from the power transmission apparatus 1 and transmitting that modulated wave (the “information signal”) to primary side coil 11 (e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 77, 78, 80), we find persuasive Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner has not established that this discloses modulating the power transfer current induced by the base unit. See Prelim. Resp. 18–22. Petitioner cites to testimony from Dr. Baker that the “information signals (which have current) are modulated . . .” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 215), but this testimony does not establish current modulation. That is, simply because the information signals may have current fails to establish that current modulation is performed as recited in the claim. Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Nakamura alone teaches this limitation for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 17

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached

    “Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”); Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1367 (same). Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion and deny the Petition based on the district court litigation and based on the multiple related petitions filed by Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 6–17. We need not address Patent Owner’s contentions concerning discretionary denial because, as discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’208 patent.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21, 22–64). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 6. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner states that “no special constructions are necessary to assess whether the challenged claims are unpatentable over the asserted prior art.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 67). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s statement on claim construction.” Prelim. Resp. 6. We determine that we do not need to expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,948,208
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01087 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 27 would have been obvious over Nakamura, Odendaal, and Calhoon.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Harmonic Inc., 815 F.3d at 1363; 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). 2. Conclusion Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not presented adequate reasoning to show a reasonable likelihood that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Nakamura with the teachings of Odendaal in the manner claimed. Having considered all of the arguments and evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of that it will prevail in establishing that claims 1 and 27 would have been obvious over the combination of Nakamura, Odendaal, and Calhoon. IV. CONCLUSION On this preliminary record, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the ground advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 24

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

    “On the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that the POSA would have been motivated to modify Nakamura to include Odendaal’s spiral coils in place of Nakamura’s multiple winding sections wound around a ferrite core. As discussed above, the configuration of multiple winding sections wound around a common ferrite core allows Nakamura’s system to provide multiple different power levels and to align charging and receiving equipment for optimal transmission. The Petition asserts that “the Nakamura-Odendaal system/device [would] include features and perform functionalities like those described by Nakamura.” Pet. 29. But the Petition does not explain how it proposes to obtain multiple power level functionality using Odendaal’s simple untapped planar coils. Nor does the Petition explain how it proposes to preserve Nakamura’s alignment functionality using Odendaal’s untapped planar coils. See 8 Odendaal also discloses bi-filar and multi-filar spirals (id. at 2:51–55; Fig 1B) but Petitioner does not rely on those disclosures (see, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75–77; 129–134 (discussing the disclosures of Odendaal relied upon for obviousness without discussing bi-filar and multi-filar spirals)). In addition, as Patent Owner explains (Prelim. Resp. 47–48), Odendaal does not describe these bi- and multi-filar spirals as having the ability to act separately. Rather, Odendaal teaches that the spirals are placed on top of each other and separated by a dielectric film that forms a capacitor. Ex. 1008, 3:32–40. Thus, Odendaal’s bi- and multi-filar spirals would act like a single coil. Id.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “have known how to configure the modified system/device such that it operated as intended consistent with Nakamura’s teachings/designs.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 141). But Petitioner and Dr. Baker never explain what the combined system would look like or how it would work. Petitioner’s omission to address how its combined system would work is illustrated in how it addresses the claim requirement that a magnetic field is received “in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane of the receiver coil.” Ex. 1001, 27:17–18 (claim limitation reciting “the receiver coil has a generally planar shape so that a magnetic field received in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane of the receiver coil is used to inductively generate a current in the receiver coil,”); 30:15–18 (same). To address this requirement, Petitioner relies not on a discussion of how the magnetic field in the proposed combined system of Nakamura and Odendaal would work (i.e., in the planar coil configuration), but on the magnetic field generated by Nakamura’s multi-section winding and ferrite core – i.e., the very winding it proposes to replace with Odendaal’s planar coils. Pet. 19–20. The significant differences between Nakamura’s multiple winding sections and Odendaal’s simple planar coil make it difficult to discern, on this record, how Odendaal’s coils would be incorporated in Nakamura’s 9 To the extent Petitioner contends that the combined Nakamura/Odendaal system would lack these functionalities, it undermines the POSA’s motivation to use planar coils in Nakamura’s system. 21 system without compromising functionality.10 Absent further explanation as to how the combined system of Nakamura and Odendaal would preserve Nakamura’s functionality, we give little weight to Dr. Baker’s conclusory testimony that the POSA would have known how to do so. Ex. 1002 ¶ 141; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no 10 Petitioner extensively relies on internal cross-references in both the Petition and in Dr. Baker’s Declaration. For example, paragraph 141 of Dr. Baker’s Declaration, refers to “my analysis and discussions above in this section,” “my analysis and discussions in Sections IX.A.1(a)-1(b),” and “my analysis and discussions in Sections VIII.A-B, IX.A.1(a)-(b).” As another example, paragraph 140 of Dr. Baker’s Declaration refers to “my analysis and discussions above in this section,” “my analysis and discussions above regarding state of art disclosures such as those in Exs. 1006–1007, 1009– 1011, 1015, 1024–1030,” “my discussions above in Section V.B and those above where I reference state-of-art references supporting such understanding,” and “my analysis and discussions in Sections IX.A.1(a)– (l).” Similarly, the Petition states that “[o]ther disclosed features would have been included in the Nakamura-Odendaal system (including as further modified below) for reasons explained,” and provides a citation to “§§IX.A.1(a)–(l)).” Pet. 30. Although there is no rule against internal crossreferencing, and we recognize that it can be useful to avoid duplication, Petitioner’s cross-referencing here results in a lack of clarity. Our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) provides that “parties should avoid submitting a repository of all of the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well-organized arguments, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.” Petitioner has failed to follow this guidance, which has made it difficult to discern Petitioner’s precise contentions as to the combination of Nakamura and Odendaal, and further supports that Petitioner has not shown “with particularity” why the ’440 patent is unpatentable over Nakamura, Odendaal, and Calhoon. 22 weight.”); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner contends: A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed priority date of the ’440 patent (“POSITA”) would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems. More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed definition of the POSA for purposes of its preliminary response. Prelim. Resp. 6. Petitioner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’440 9 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,577,440
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01102 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 15, 17, and 20–23 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). At the institution phase of an inter partes review, Petitioner’s burden is to show 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).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “POSITA”) would have had “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–22, 23–66). slip op. at 7

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

    “requires a microcontroller configured for “operating in a first mode of operation using a first protocol,” wherein that protocol “is an inductive charging communication-and-control protocol that comprises uni-directional messaging.” In this mode, the claim requires a first communication sent from the receiver (the charged device) to the base system (the charger). Ex. 1001, 72:6–9 (“sending . . . a first communication”). The claim also requires the microcontroller to be configured for “operating in a second mode of operation using a second protocol,” wherein that protocol “is an inductive charging communication-and-control protocol that defines bi-directional messaging.” Id. at 72:12–16. In this mode, the claim requires a second communication sent from the receiver to the base system, and also a third communication sent from the base system to the receiver. Id. at 72:18– 26 (“sending . . . a second communication” and “receiving . . . [a] third communication”). We also note that claim 5, which depends from independent claim 1 (which is similar to claim 15), specifies that “the first mode of operation is a subset of the second mode of operation,” but also note that claim 15 does not have a similar claim that depends from it. Id. at 71:11–12. Independent claim 24 is similar, but states that the second protocol “comprises bi-directional messaging” (emphasis added), instead of claim 1’s recitation of “defines bi-directional messaging” (emphasis added). Compare id. at 72:16 with id. at 74:1. The fact that the two modes of operation specified in claim 15 are otherwise effectively identical but for the unidirectional and bidirectional aspects, suggests that the claims use these terms to distinguish the two modes. In other words, it tends to indicate that the words “uni-directional” and “bi-directional” in claim 15 are intended to refer to distinct messaging protocols (rather than “uni-directional” being merely half of “bi-directional”). See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”). Likewise, the first mode recites “sending . . . a first communication,” whereas the second mode recites both “sending” and “receiving” communications. Although not dispositive (given the “comprising” language of the claims), this language is consistent with an understanding that unidirectional modes only have a sending of information (from the perspective of the power receiving device) whereas bidirectional modes have two-way messaging between the charger and receiver.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “testimony of Petitioner’s expert and find that it does not provide a factual basis for Petitioner’s assertion that unidirectional messaging is just one leg of bidirectional messaging. See, e.g., Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112). In particular, the expert’s testimony largely just repeats the assertions of the Petition, without providing sufficient additional analysis or evidence useful to determine how a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe those terms. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–114; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB 2022) (precedential) (holding declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning). Instead, Petitioner’s expert appears to largely assume that the prior art reference Sogabe discloses unidirectional messaging, giving the expert’s opinion little probative value. Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quoting Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to provide prior knowledge or use, it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”).” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,342,777

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.