- Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01449 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 2 were unpatentable under any of the four asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary 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.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” where “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 25). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’463 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’463 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“C. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such 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). Petitioner argues that “the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. 25–26. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Preliminary Response. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Further, because Bowen’s disclosed barrier height is outside the claimed range, Petitioner relies on Soukup’s purported teaching of a barrier height of “about 0.33 eV” and contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “achieve” that barrier height for the MgO barrier of Bowen’s device. Id. at 34–36. The data that Petitioner relies on from Soukup for the “about 0.33 eV” barrier height, though, was determined using the slope of an Arrhenius plot, not Simmons’ formula. Ex. 1028, 3229 (Abstract), 3231–33, Table I. In Soukup, apparent barrier heights for the samples were determined using (1) the slope of an Arrhenius plot, and (2) the zero-field intercept of the straight line logI versus V1/2 plot. Id. at 3229 (Abstract), 3230–32, Fig. 3, Table I. Reproduced below is Table I of Soukup, as annotated by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 39): Annotated Table I of Soukup includes the results of analyses of sample test data, with the column highlighted in yellow showing the barrier heights obtained by a zero-field intercept method and the column highlighted in blue showing barrier heights obtained from the slope of an Arrhenius plot. See Ex. 1028, 3233; Prelim. Resp. 38–39. Dr. Bokor testifies that “Soukup disclosed that Simmons’ formula was used to approximate tunnel barrier height” and “[o]ne of skill would have understood the ‘height and the bias dependence of the insulator potential-energy barrier’ [referenced in Soukup] included the tunnel barrier height.” Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 145–147 (quoting Ex. 1028, 3229; citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 45–49). We do not find this testimony persuasive. Although Soukup refers to “Simmons’ model” and the Simmons 1963 paper in its “Introduction,” it does not teach any calculation using Simmons’ formula to obtain a barrier height within the claimed range. See Ex. 1028, 3229, 3236 n.1; Prelim. Resp. 63. Soukup plainly recognizes that there are methods of calculating barrier height other than Simmons’ formula, and discusses at length its calculations using two such methods: the Arrhenius plot method and the zero-field intercept method. See, e.g., Ex. 1028, 3229 (Abstract) (“These results . . . indicate a potential barrier height of about 0.72 eV when determined from the zero-field intercept of the straight line logI vs V1/2 plot and about 0.33 eV when obtained from an Arrhenius plot.”), 3232–33. Petitioner does not address whether the 0.33 eV barrier height it relies on from Soukup (determined using the Arrhenius plot method) would still be within the claimed range if calculated using Simmons’ formula. See Prelim. Resp. 63. Nor does Petitioner rely on any values from Soukup’s disclosure that would be used as the variables in Simmons’ formula—Petitioner relies solely on Bowen. See Pet. 39–42. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that Bowen and Soukup teach a barrier height within the claimed range, obtained using equation (1), is not persuasive. See id. at 34–42.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,123,463 - Trend Micro, Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 14, 2024 · IPR2023-01390 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Piccard was disqualified under pre-AIA § 103(c)(1), leaving neither asserted obviousness ground likely to establish claims 1–14 as unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’243 patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Petitioner asserts that Piccard qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e). Pet. 4 (“Piccard . . . is prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e) because it was filed on June 30, 2005, before the earliest possible priority date of the ’243 patent.”). Piccard cannot qualify as prior art under § 102(a) or § 102(b), as Piccard published January 4, 2007, which is after the ’243 patent’s April 20, 2006 filing date. Ex. 1007, code (43); Ex. 1001, code (22). Therefore, Piccard could qualify as prior art only under § 102(e) and may be subject to disqualification under § 103(c)(1). Cf. Unified Patents, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-02148, Paper 9 at 19–20 (PTAB Apr. 17, 2018) (determining that a reference was not disqualified under § 103(c)(1) because it qualified as prior art under § 102(a) and therefore was not “prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102”).” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,201,243 - Sophos Ltd. / Sophos Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00732 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Li was prior art, defeating the reasonable-likelihood showing for all challenged claims and grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’932 patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Our rules require that “[a]ll evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit,” and that “[e]ach exhibit must be filed with the first document in which it is cited except as the Board may otherwise order.” Id. §§ 42.63(a), 42.6(c). Despite Petitioner not filing the webpage links as exhibits with Exhibit 1009, we gave Petitioner the opportunity to correct this error and ordered Petitioner to file late copies of these webpage links as exhibits by September 22, 2023. See Ex. 3001 (email order); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c) (“except as the Board may otherwise order”). Petitioner declined to do so, instead choosing to request authorization to file a Motion to Dismiss, which we authorized in an order mailed October 2, 2023 (Paper 17).8 In our email order, we informed Petitioner that failure to file the webpage links as exhibits would result in the Board not considering the webpage links as evidence in these proceedings. Ex. 3001. Our order authorizing filing of the Motion to Dismiss did not obviate Petitioner’s responsibility to file copies of the webpage links as exhibits. See id.; Paper 17.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner provides a slightly different definition of the level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–43). We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’932 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this decision. Our decision would not have changed had we adopted Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“reasonable likelihood that Li was publicly accessible before the priority date of the ’932 patent. In particular, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Li “has been disseminated” or that Li was “otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” See SRI, 511 F.3d at 1194. As an initial matter, Li is undated. We can find no indication anywhere in Li itself evidencing a timeframe in which it might have been published, not even a copyright date. There is also no indication in Li of any journal or website where Li may have been published. Dr. Hall-Ellis testifies that Li “appears beginning on page 12” of, purportedly, a record of the 12th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems: Modeling and Analysis, but the copy of Li submitted by Petitioner starts on page “1” and includes no further pages describing any conference. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 40; Ex. 1005, 1. Ultimately, there is nothing in the text of Li itself to distinguish Li from a draft paper that was never published. Petitioner submits no evidence that Li was disseminated at or around the time of the 12th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems: Modeling and Analysis. See Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1381. Dr. Hall-Ellis testifies that Li was “presented” at the conference but submits no evidence in support of this assertion. Ex. 1009 ¶ 43. For example, Dr. Hall-Ellis does not address “whether the copies were freely distributed to interested members of the public” or whether there was a “legal obligation of confidentiality” when distributing any copies, among other factors. See Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1381. Absent any such evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown dissemination of Li at or around the time of the conference, or at any other time before the ’932 patent’s asserted priority date. Petitioner also does not sufficiently establish that Li was “otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” See SRI Int’l, 511 F.3d at 1194. Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony is deficient because her testimony does not establish that Li was likely made available to the public before the critical date of the challenged patent. See Hulu, Paper 29 at 16. For example, Dr. Hall-Ellis does not claim personal knowledge of when Li was first published, was unclear as to when she obtained Li from the OPERA digital repository, and unpersuasively asserts that Li “is” available from other digital repositories. See Prelim. Resp. 32–33; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 40–41. Whether Li “is” available online now does not establish that Li was publicly accessible in the relevant timeframe, i.e., 17 years earlier, prior to the April 20, 2006 priority date of the ’932 patent. Further, Dr. Hall-Ellis presents no persuasive evidence that the identified digital repositories hosted Li in the relevant timeframe. Patent Owner persuasively asserts that ResearchGate was established in 2008, after the priority date, and that Google Scholar’s page referencing Li links to ResearchGate. Prelim. Resp. 33–34 (citing Ex. 2014 (“We started ResearchGate in 2008 . . . .”); Ex. 1009 ¶ 41; see also id. n.23 (Google Scholar link, showing “[PDF] from researchgate.net”). Accordingly, these repositories do not support Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony that Li was publicly available in the relevant timeframe, before April 20, 2006. Dr. Hall-Ellis’s reliance on the CiteSeer repository is also unavailing because Dr. Hall- Ellis’s link to CiteSeer directly opens a PDF file of Li and does not provide any evidence showing that CiteSeer hosted Li in the relevant timeframe. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 41 n.24.” slip op. at 15
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,719,932 - Sophos Ltd. / Sophos Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00731 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Li was prior art, defeating the reasonable-likelihood showing for all challenged claims and grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’243 patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“therefore, “the Board [will] not consider[] these hyperlinked webpages as evidence in [this] proceeding[].” Ex. 3001. As a result, Dr. Hall-Ellis’s declaration does not cite any supporting evidence of record in this proceeding (other than Li itself, Ex. 1005). Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 40–43. The declaration thus “does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based” and is therefore “entitled to little or no weight.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). For this reason alone, we find that Petitioner has failed to establish the public accessibility of Li.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Our rules require that “[a]ll evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit,” and that “[e]ach exhibit must be filed with the first document in which it is cited except as the Board may otherwise order.” Id. §§ 42.63(a), 42.6(c). Despite Petitioner not filing the webpage links as exhibits with Exhibit 1009, we gave Petitioner the opportunity to correct this error and ordered Petitioner to file late copies of these webpage links as exhibits by September 22, 2023. See Ex. 3001 (email order); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c) (“except as the Board may otherwise order”). Petitioner declined to do so, instead choosing to request authorization to file a Motion to Dismiss, which we authorized in an order mailed October 2, 2023 (Paper 17).7 In our email order, we informed Petitioner that failure to file the webpage links as exhibits would result in the Board not considering the webpage links as evidence in these proceedings. Ex. 3001. Our order authorizing filing of the Motion to Dismiss did not obviate Petitioner’s responsibility to file copies of the webpage links as exhibits. See id.; Paper 17.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner provides a slightly different definition of the level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 22–23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–43). We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’243 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this decision. Our decision would not have changed had we adopted Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,201,243 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00717 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims: Grounds 1–3, 6, and 7 failed the institution threshold, and Grounds 4 and 5 were denied under § 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“the list of cited references of the ’203 Patent. Ex. 1001, 2; Ex. 1002, 430. Because the same reference was cited during prosecution, there is no material difference between Christensen and the prior art involved during examination. Given these facts, we need not further evaluate factor (b), whether Christensen is cumulative, nor factor (d), the extent of overlap in arguments regarding Christensen. Thus, we find that the same reference was previously presented to the Office, and we move on to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the Petition does not establish there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in establishing at least one of Challenged Claims of the ’203 Patent as unpatentable under certain grounds presented in the Petition, and that the remaining asserted grounds should be denied pursuant to our delegated discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review as to any of the challenged claims of the ’203 Patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have had at least a B.S. in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and three years of experience working in the communications- or Internet-related industries” and that “[m]ore education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” C. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 43). Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill appears to be generally consistent with the subject matter of the ’203 Patent. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner that the recited database system should be given no patentable weight. The Federal Circuit explains that [p]roduct-by-process claims are not specifically discussed in the patent statute. The practice and governing law have developed in response to the need to enable an applicant to claim an otherwise patentable product that resists definition by other than the process by which it is made. For this reason, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). With respect to patentability, “[i]f the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” Id. The Federal Circuit has clearly stated that “[i]n determining validity of a product-by-process claim, the focus is on the product and not the process of making it.” Purdue Pharma, 811 F.3d at 1354 (quoting Greenliant Sys., Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). “That is because of the . . . longstanding rule that an old product is not patentable even if it is made by a new process.” Id. Generally, therefore, the recited process steps in a product-by-process claim are not accorded patentable weight. See In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, 881 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he Board typically will not accord patentable weight to a process limitation in a product-by-process claim.”) (citing Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,200,203 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00718 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on the Levy grounds and § 325(d) warranted denial of the Christensen ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response and for the reasons explained below, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 of the ’843 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he [Office] is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an [inter partes review] proceeding.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), in determining whether to institute an inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In evaluating the exercise of discretion to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying the two-part framework, we consider several non- exclusive factors, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”). Factors (a), (b), and (d) of the Becton, Dickinson factors relate to whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“Based on our review of Petitioner’s relied-upon portions of Levy, Levy uses an extracted identifier, such as a broadcaster ID, and “context information” to identify an audio object. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 15, 56. Thus, if we accepted Petitioner’s position that obtaining Levy’s “object identifier” discloses “acquir[ing] encoded third party data associated with the reception of the specific instance of the media segment in the electronic transmission,” Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how context information that is extracted and forwarded with the broadcaster ID to obtain the “object identifier” can disclose “generat[ing] data that enables the unique identification of the specific instance of acquisition of the encoded third party data.” See Pet. 57–60; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–194. Petitioner does not identifier” can be acquired and generated in the manner argued by Petitioner. See Pet. 57–60; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–194; see also Prelim. Resp. 36–37 (contending that Petitioner’s anticipation challenges lack particularity). As argued by Patent Owner, claim 10 requires that “generat[ing] data that enables the unique identification of the specific instance of acquisition of the encoded third party data” occur either after or at the same time as “acquir[ing] encoded third party data associated with the reception of the specific instance of the media segment in the electronic transmission.” Ex. 1001, 36:28–33. Claim 10 recites a “specific instance of acquisition of the encoded third party data” that apparently refers to the earlier-recited “acquire encoded third party data associated with the reception of the specific instance of the media segment in the electronic transmission,” and Petitioner does not address the interpretation of “acquisition” in view of the previously recited “acquire.” See Pet. 9–10, 57–60. Additionally, Petitioner’s declarant testimony does not explain further the arguments or evidence presented in the Petition and does not provide additional evidence beyond that cited in the Petition. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–194. Thus, for the reasons above, Petitioner fails to show that Levy discloses all the limitations of independent claim 10. 3. Dependent Claims 11, 13, and 15 Petitioner argues that Levy anticipates dependent claims 11, 13, and 15 with citations to the record. Pet. 65–69. Petitioner’s arguments and relied upon evidence for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies discussed above for independent claim 10. that Levy discloses all the limitations of dependent claims 11, 13, and 15 and, therefore, fails to show that Levy anticipates these claims.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“4. Asserted Obviousness in view of Levy and Finley Petitioner argues that: [t]o the extent . . . that Levy does not anticipate the Challenged Claims because Levy does not disclose the complete details of the claimed database (in other words, that the difference between each claim as a whole and the prior art as a whole is the explicit recitation of the claimed database), it would have been obvious to store the object ID lookup information or purchase transaction tracking information. Pet. 69 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 227); see also id. (contending that Levy teaches storing a transaction log in a log file of a database). Petitioner’s arguments that Levy and Finley would have rendered obvious claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 do not further address the limitations we discussed above for claim 10, and Petitioner’s proposed modification of Levy in view of Finley does not remedy the deficiencies of Petitioner’s arguments that Levy discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Thus, for the reasons discussed above for claim 10, Petitioner fails to show that Levy and Finley teach or suggest all the limitations of claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 and, therefore, fails to show that Levy and Finley would have rendered obvious these claims. 5. Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing As discussed above, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Levy anticipates claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 and fail to show that Levy and Finley would have rendered obvious these claims. Petitioner, therefore, fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges based on Levy.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,584,843 - One World Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Techtronic Industries Power Equipment v. The Chamberlain Group, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 3, 2017 · IPR2017-01042 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–22 unpatentable over Crusius alone or with Weik.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 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 Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the challenged claims. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’966 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“battery.” Claim 9 further recites “the at least one rechargeable battery being removably connectable to electrically powered equipment . . . to provide power to the electrically powered equipment.” Thus, the claim recites one connection between the battery charging station and the rechargeable battery (“in electrical communication”) and another connection between the rechargeable battery and the electrically powered equipment (“removably connectable to”). Separately reciting two different connections between the devices and the rechargeable battery indicates that the devices are distinct from each other. The other independent claims include similar language. Claim 1 recites “a battery charging station in electrical communication with at least one rechargeable battery” and “electrically powered equipment . . . comprising an apparatus for receiving the at least one rechargeable battery and to be powered by the at least one rechargeable battery to perform a predetermined function.” Claim 15 recites “detecting whether the at least one rechargeable battery is in electrical communication with a battery charging station” and “providing power from the at least one rechargeable battery to the electrically powered equipment in response to the at least one rechargeable battery being electrically connected to the electrically powered equipment.” Claim 19 recites “a battery charging station configured to supply power to the at least one separable rechargeable battery that is configured to separably and electrically connect to and power electrically powered equipment.” The Specification of the ’966 patent confirms that the “electrically powered equipment” is distinct from the “battery charging station.” Figure 3 of the ’966 patent shows that battery charging station 82 includes batteries 104, 108 in respective receptacles 102, 106. Ex. 1001, Fig. 3. The ’966 patent never states that battery charging station 82 may include electrically powered equipment. Id. at 4:47–5:15. To the contrary, the ’966 patent shows electrically powered equipment 140 with battery 144 in receptacle 142 in Figure 5. Id. The ’966 patent does not state that electrically powered equipment 140 constitutes any part of battery charging station 82, but rather discloses that battery 144, which may be one of the batteries 102, 104 from battery charging station 82 in Figure 3, may be used in electrically powered equipment 140, and when finished, may be placed back in battery charging station 82 to be recharged. Id. at 5:51–6:3.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“Petitioner maps the claimed “battery charging station” to Crusius’s battery charge and control circuit 41 and conductors 46, 49. Pet. 26; Ex. 1012, Fig. 1 (annotated). Petitioner maps the claimed “electrically powered equipment” to Crusius’s LEDs 91–93, buzzer 95, and “associated circuitry.” Pet. 31–32. Petitioner does not identify any particular part(s) of Crusius as the “associated circuitry,” however. As shown and described in Crusius, and as Petitioner acknowledges, LEDs 91–93 and buzzer 95 are part of battery charge and control circuit 41. Ex. 1012 ¶ 14, Fig. 1; see Pet. 31 (arguing that Crusius “discloses electrically powered equipment other than and physically separate or separable from the BMO including LEDs 91–93, as well as buzzer 95 in the battery charge and control unit 41” (emphasis added)). Thus, in the language of the claims, Petitioner contends Crusius describes “electrically powered equipment” (Crusius’s LEDs 91–93, buzzer 95, and “associated circuitry”) that is part of a “battery charging station” (Crusius’s battery charge and control circuit 41). However, for the reasons explained above, the claims do not encompass this arrangement, but require a “battery charging station” and “electrically powered equipment” that are distinct devices. See supra Section I.E. Thus, Petitioner’s arguments as to how Crusius discloses a “battery charging station” and “electrically powered equipment” as recited in claim 1 are not persuasive. Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner asserts one of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to modify Crusius to include using two of the [barrier movement operators] disclosed in the Crusius reference in a single garage (for example, equipping a two-door garage with a second garage door opener according to Crusius).” Pet. 58–59; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 219, 200. Petitioner notes multiple garage doors, such as disclosed by another reference, the Craftsman Owner’s Manual for Garage Door Operator Model 139.53919 (Ex. 1007, “Craftsman”), were common at the time of the ’966 patent. Id. According to Petitioner, for example, “with two Crusius garage door openers, the same remotes could be used to control multiple garage door openers, and the battery backup unit . . . could be interchanged between garage door openers in the event of a power outage.” Id. Petitioner’s reasons to modify Crusius and its declarant’s testimony regarding the same are unpersuasive. As Patent Owner asserts, the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Stuart Lipoff, concerning the reasons to modify Crusius is conclusory and lacks evidentiary support. Prelim. Resp. 25. Specifically, Mr. Lipoff states “during a power outage in a garage with two garage doors, a battery backup unit could be used to operate the first garage door, i.e., to gain entry in the garage from outside, then plugged into a second barrier movement operator to operate the second door, for example, if departing in a different vehicle.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 225. This testimony as to what someone “could” have done does not address, for example, why a person of ordinary skill would undertake the more difficult task of moving a backup battery from one barrier movement operator to another as opposed to simpler approaches, such as providing each barrier movement operator with its own backup battery or using a single backup battery connected to operate multiple barrier movement operators. See Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” (emphases omitted)). Thus, we find Petitioner’s reasons to modify Crusius and its declarant’s testimony unpersuasive. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that any of the claims challenged are unpatentable over Crusius.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,635,966 - Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 11, 2017 · IPR2017-00935 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 8–11, 13, 17–24, 26–28, 43, 46, 49, 50, and 52–62 of U.S. Patent No. 8,354,726 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’726 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a). Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary 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.” For the reasons that follow, we have decided not to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“limitation of claim 1. Petitioner does not point to any express disclosure in the Intel 90 nm Report of the relevant distance and thicknesses, instead relying on averages of various measurements made by Dr. Fair. See Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–99. Petitioner and Dr. Fair, however, do not explain any basis for why it is appropriate to rely on averages of measurements of different components at different locations—as opposed to actual measurements of each component asserted to be the “first gate electrode,” “auxiliary pattern,” “first side-wall insulating film,” “second side-wall insulating film,” and “stress-containing insulating film” recited in the claim—for purposes of calculating the distance limitation. For example, Petitioner does not contend that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have calculated averages and understood the reference to disclose certain values based on such a methodology. “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference,” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989), and that the claim limitations be “arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim[],” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Petitioner’s reliance on averages of various measurements, without any supporting explanation, is insufficient to show that the Intel 90 nm Report discloses the distance limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“D. Other Asserted Grounds (Claims 20, 22, 54, and 56) Petitioner contends that claims 20 and 54 are unpatentable over the Intel 90 nm Report and the Intel IEEE Paper, claims 22 and 56 are unpatentable over the Intel 90 nm Report and Doris, and claims 22 and 56 are unpatentable over the Intel 65 nm Report and Doris, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 77–83. Claims 20 and 22 depend from claim 1, and claims 54 and 56 depend from claim 43. Petitioner does not argue that the distance limitation of claims 1 and 43 is taught by the Intel IEEE Paper or Doris, alone or in combination with the Intel reports. Id. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted grounds for the reasons explained above with respect to parent claims 1 and 43. See supra Sections II.B, II.C.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“E. Claim Interpretation The Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the claim interpretation standard to be applied in inter partes reviews). The parties do not provide proposed interpretations for any claim terms, but Petitioner refers to a district court decision interpreting certain terms. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1008). For purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no claim terms require interpretation.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,354,726 - PTAB · Jul 26, 2017 · IPR2017-00630 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Engel under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), citing the testimony of Bill Lin, Ph.D., as support. Pet. 11–48 (citing Ex. 1006). We are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Some prior art packet monitors classify packets into connection flows. The term “connection flow” is commonly used to describe all the packets involved with a single connection. A conversational flow, on the other hand, is the sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a result of an activity—for instance, the running of an application on a server as requested by a client. It is desirable to be able to identify and classify conversational flows rather than only connection flows. The reason for this is that some conversational flows involve more than one connection, and some even involve more than one exchange of packets between a client and server.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“supports Petitioner’s position. Monitoring statistics is not the same as monitoring a conversational flow, which necessarily identifies a “sequence of packets,” under our interpretation. See supra Section I.E. In other words, tracking statistics for a given application between a particular client and server, or between a particular server and all of its clients, is not sufficient in and of itself; a conversational flow identifies a sequence of packets exchanged between two nodes as a result of specific activity (e.g., a “sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a result of an activity”).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“12, 45, 47, and 48 are unpatentable over Engel and Baker, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 57–73. Claim 12 depends from claim 1. Claim 44 recites an identical “conversational flow” limitation to that discussed above with respect to claim 1: (c) looking up a flow-entry database comprising none or more flow-entries for previously encountered conversational flows, the looking up using at least some of the selected packet portions and determining if the packet is of an existing flow. Petitioner relies on the same analysis for “Element 44(c)” as discussed above in Section II.A.2. Pet. 52 (“See Element 1(c).”). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground for the reasons explained above with respect to claim 44, as well as claims 12, 45, 47, and 48, which depend from claims 1 or 44. See supra Section II.A.2.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,954,789 - PTAB · Jul 26, 2017 · IPR2017-00451 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Engel anticipation ground or either obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“C. Conclusion We conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’751 patent challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims. III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of the ’751 patent.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“the sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a result of an activity—for instance, the running of an application on a server as requested by a client—and where some conversational flows involve more than one connection, and some even involve more than one exchange of packets between a client and server.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“and B engage in a dialog at each layer (e.g., the application layer). Thus, Engel monitors communications exchanged between the nodes at a particular layer, and tracks statistics for all communications at that layer (to assist in diagnosing network problems and improving network performance). See, e.g., id. at col. 4, ll. 24–32 (Engel “organizes and presents network performance statistics in terms of dialogs which are occurring at any desired level of the communication”). Petitioner, however, does not point to any disclosure in Engel indicating that its disclosed system relates information from one packet to another as pertaining to a specific application activity. In other words, in Engel there is exchange of packets in the application layer constituting a dialog (see, e.g., id. at col. 9, ll. 37–43) and collection of respective statistics for that dialog (see, e.g., id. at col. 4, ll. 24–32). However, even if application activity causes the dialog to be created, Petitioner does not direct us to teachings or disclosure of identifying a sequence of packets as being part of a specific application activity. Moreover, Patent Owner notes that in Engel “[k]eeping statistics for protocol layers may be temporarily suspended when parsing and statistics gathering is not rapid enough to match the rate of packets to be parsed,” which further suggests Engel does not relate sequences of packets to applications because some packets may be lost. Prelim. Resp. 38 (quoting Ex. 1007, col. 3, ll. 12–14; Ex. 2001 ¶ 74).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“arguments as to how Engel allegedly monitors “conversational flows” using the STATS database and, therefore, are not persuaded that Engel discloses (b) for each received packet, looking up a flow-entry database for containing one or more flow-entries for previously encountered conversational flows, the looking up to determine if the received packet is of an existing flow, a conversational flow including an exchange of a sequence of one or more packets in any direction between two network entities as a result of a particular activity using a particular layered set of one or more network protocols, a conversational flow further having a set of one or more states, including an initial state.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,839,751
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.