- PTAB · Jan 21, 2025 · IPR2023-01458 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board denied institution because the petition failed to show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, including over Hall and Borowski.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“We entered a first Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (Paper 8), and Petitioner filed a Request for Director Review (Paper 13). The former Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office vacated our denial of institution and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the former Director’s decision. Paper 14. After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Director’s Review Decision, and the post Director’s Review Supplemental Briefing (Papers 16 and 17), and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’236 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Director’s Review Decision, and the post Director’s Review Supplemental Briefing (Papers 16 and 17), and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’236 patent. 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.” Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’236 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts: “A [person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’)] as of August 24, 2016 would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or physics, and two to three years of experience in LiDAR design.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–64). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Prelim. Resp. 9. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is consistent with the ’236 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In applying this standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data 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))); see also Pet. 10 (“[N]o formal constructions are necessary.”); Prelim. Resp. 10 (“[N]o formal constructions are necessary.”).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,422,236 - Giesecke+devrient GmbH v. Lumenco, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00837 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13 were obvious over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not satisfied this threshold requirement, and therefore we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13 of the ’691 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner’s reading of limitation [1d]. This limitation requires that each set of micro mirrors has a differing cone angle offset. A claim requiring “each” of an item to have a particular structure requires all instances of the item to have that structure. See In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (claim reciting that “each wire leg” have an offset is not satisfied by prior-art device in which not all of its wire legs have an offset); cf. Micron Tech., Inc. v. U.S., 243 F.3d 1301, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The use of the words ‘each’ and ‘any’ to modify ‘employee . . . leaves no doubt as to the Congressional intention to include all employees within the scope of the [Fair Labor Standards] Act unless specifically excluded.”) (quoting U.S. v. Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360, 362–63 (1945)); ResQNet.com v. Lansa, Inc., 346 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (excerpt in specification using words “each field” and “fields” refers to all, not just some, fields). Thus, for each set of micro mirrors providing the pixels for each image to have a “differing cone angle offset,” the cone angle offsets of all the sets of micro mirrors must differ from each other. Consequently, as Patent Owner states (Prelim. Resp. 12), a set of micromirrors producing a pixel for a first image must have a cone angle offset that is different from the other sets of micromirrors producing pixels for that image, and also different from the sets of micromirrors producing pixels for any other image. Petitioner has not made us aware of anything in the Specification that suggests otherwise. We are not persuaded that Fuhse262 teaches limitation [1d] under this interpretation. Petitioner has not identified, and we are unable to find, any teaching in Fuhse262 that each set of micro mirrors providing the pixels for each of the differing ones of the images has a differing cone angle offset from those of the other sets of micro mirrors. Petitioner asserts instead that “a POSITA would understand that there is a differing cone angle offset for each image because the surface normal of each image, which dictate the cone of reflected rays and cone axis, are required to be different.” Pet. 41. But this assertion suggests, at most, that the sets of micro mirrors that create pixels for a first image have different cone angle offsets than the sets of micro mirrors that create pixels for a second image; Petitioner does not appear to be asserting that, e.g., all the sets of micro mirrors creating pixels for the first image are also different from each other, as limitation [1d] requires. Because we are not persuaded that Fuhse262 teaches limitation [1d], we are not persuaded that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 1 would have been obvious over Fuhse262 and Fuhse925.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the art “would have had a minimum of an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or physics and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–13). Patent Owner responds that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, physics, or a similar field and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We do not discern a meaningful difference between the parties’ positions, and do not believe that our decision would differ under either definition. Nonetheless, at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We also presume that the cited prior art references reflect the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties agree that no terms require construction. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 10. We also do not see the need to expressly construe any claim term, as the threshold question of institution can be decided without doing so. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,317,691 - Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Identitii LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00593 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We determine that the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims 1–2 and 4–20 are unpatentable over Kennedy and Kurani-816. 2. Ground 2 — Kennedy, Kurani-816, and Yago Claim 3 depends from claim 1. We determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that claim 3 would have been obvious over Kennedy, Kurani-816, and Yago. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. We are not persuaded by Petitioner that it would have been obvious to a POSITA, based on the disclosures of Kennedy and Kurani-816, to store a digital title in memory 228 of processing server 102 for the purpose of record keeping. See Ex. 2013 ¶ 91. Kennedy discloses that processing server 102 includes a memory 228 for storing data used to perform its function, such as encryption keys, algorithms, and application programs. Ex. 1033 ¶ 46. Kennedy does not disclose memory 228 being a document store for record keeping of transaction messages or other transaction data. See id. In Kennedy, a private blockchain 206 stores data record 208 containing the transaction data. See e.g., id. ¶¶ 48–51; Fig. 2. Kurani-816 discloses digital titles that are specific to an asset and not to a particular financial transaction. Ex. 1034, 3:13–15. The digital titles are stored in a database at a digital title company and provided to the seller or buyer during a transaction. See e.g., id. at 6:34–9:7. Kurani-816 does not disclose transmitting the digital title to a financial transaction processing server, like processing server 102. Id. Thus, neither Kennedy nor Kurani-816 teaches transmitting documents pertaining to a financial transaction and a token corresponding to a financial transaction to identify the document to a first document store, as required by claim elements 1 and 6. For the reasons above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that claim 1 would have been obvious to a POSITA over Kennedy and Kurani-816.” slip op. at 19
- Parallel petitionsNot reached
“Because we have denied institution in IPR2024-00590 and deny institution in this proceeding based on the patentability merits, we do not need to reach the issue of whether both Petitions should be instituted.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached
“patent applications, including one filed on August 14, 2015. Ex. 1001, code (30). Petitioner asserts that the ’413 patent is not entitled to priority to August 14, 2015 because the provisional applications do not provide written description support for certain claim terms. Pet. 6–15. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s assertion. Prelim. Resp. 20, n.7. As both Kennedy and Kurani-816 were filed after August 14, 2015 (see Ex. 1033, code (22); Ex. 1034, code (22)), if the ’413 patent is entitled to priority to August 14, 2015, then neither Kennedy nor Kurani-816 is available as prior art. We do not need to reach this issue because, regardless of whether Kennedy and Kurani-816 are available as prior art, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine Kennedy and Kurani-816 as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,984,413 - Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Identitii LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00590 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We determine that the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims 1–2 and 5–20 are unpatentable over Smith and Seger. 2. Grounds 2 and 3 — Smith and Seger in view of Yago and Smith and Seger in view of Kurani-274 Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and claim 4 depends from claim 3. We determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 3 and 4 would have been obvious over the relied upon art. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Claim element 2 requires the first intermediary server to add the enriched data file into the distributed ledger blockchain. Smith, however, discloses business computer 30 sending the ACH transaction detail record and the corresponding transaction data files (i.e., the enriched data record) to TPPP 70 and, then, TPPP 70 adding the ACH transaction detail record and the corresponding transaction data files to TPPP 70’s database. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 41, 53). “The [TPPP] 70 stores the transaction key, the ACH transaction detail record and the corresponding transaction data files in a database on a computer for the [TPPP] 70.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 41. Smith does not disclose business computer 30 adding the ACH transaction detail record and the corresponding transaction data files directly into TPPP 70’s database. Smith, thus, must not only be modified to replace TPPP 70’s database with a distributed ledger blockchain but also to have business computer 30 or multiple business computers 30 directly add the ACH transaction detail record and the corresponding transaction data files into the distributed ledger blockchain. Petitioner does not adequately explain why a POSITA would additionally modify Smith’s method so that business computer 30 adds the ACH transaction detail record and the corresponding transaction data files directly to a distributed ledger blockchain. See Pet. 21–26. Likewise, Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Shen fails to provide any adequate explanation to why the proposed combination of Smith and Seger would have such a result. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–87. In any event, we agree with Patent Owner that a POSITA would not be motivated to make such a modification. Smith’s TPPP 70 would service multiple business computers 30 from distinct entities (Ex. 1004 ¶ 35; Ex. 2001 ¶ 48) and each would have access to the distributed ledger block chain (Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–49). Petitioner equates the claimed enriched data record to Smith’s “ACH detailed record for the ACH transaction and its corresponding transaction data file, individually and together.” Pet. 20. Smith discloses that the ACH detailed record and transaction data file includes sensitive information, such as a signature of the consumer 50 for the ACH authorization, a copy of the driver’s license for the consumer 50, a copy of the Social Security card for the consumer 50, and a copy of a license for business 30. Ex. 1004 ¶ 51; see also Pet. 17; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–54. Smith’s TPPP 70, thus, maintains the data in a database that it completely controls and modifying Smith to include a distributed ledger which is accessed not only by TPPP 70 but by multiple distinct business entities would make Smith’s system less secure. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 52–54; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 59 (“This sensitive information is to be stored in a Payment Card Industry (aka PCI) level 1 environment. This environment maintains the highest level of compliance and encryption within the Payment Card Industry”). Dr. Olivier testifies: As the information on a public ledger is publicly accessible, the confidential information for each and every transaction would be accessible to everyone. A POSITA would not make this combination as the POSITA recognizes it would expose not only confidential information for each customer, but also confidential information for each business.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundDecided for patent owner
“need for verification (see e.g., Pet. 21 (“Smith expressly contemplates the need to verify transactions ‘based upon the transaction data files’ store in the TPPP’s ledger”)), we agree with Patent Owner that Smith and Seger teach two different kinds of verification. “A key purpose of Smith is [] having an independent, third-party payment processor that independently verifies data and maintains, controls, and modifies information in its secure database.” Prelim. Resp. 48 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 63–67). Smith teaches that TPPP 70 hosts a web interface so that a business can access the database to verify the accuracy of the data in the ACH detailed record and transaction data file by providing the transaction key and password. Ex. 1004 ¶ 56. Further, Smith teaches that TPPP 70 updates the transaction data files after TPPP 70 verifies the accuracy of the data. Ex. 1004 ¶ 53 (“The third-party processor 70 further attaches any additional transaction data files to the record associated with the transaction key . . .”). Seger, however, concerns recording communication on a ledger so the record of the communication cannot be changed, regardless of the accuracy of the information in the communication. Ex. 1005, 1:16–21, 5:7–14, 10:19–23; Ex. 2001 ¶ 65. The asserted advantage of Seger’s distributed ledger blockchain is that it is immutable and ensures that the transaction data cannot be altered. Pet. 25. We determine that Petitioner has not adequately explained how a POSITA would have incorporated Seger’s immutable distributed blockchain into Smith’s system that utilizes TPPP 70 to verify the accuracy of transaction data. We are persuaded by Patent Owner and Dr. Oliver that Petitioner’s proposed combination of Smith and Seger requires more than simply swapping out TPPP 70’s database with a blockchain. Petitioner has not adequately shown that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to replace Smith’s database in TPPP 70’s with a distributed ledger blockchain as disclosed in Seger.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,984,413 - Hesai Technology Co. Ltd. / Hesai Group et al. v. Ouster, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 28, 2024 · IPR2023-01458 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, including under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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). slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts: “A [person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’)] as of August 24, 2016 would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or physics, and two to three years of experience in LiDAR design.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–64). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Prelim. Resp. 9. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is consistent with the ’236 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In this inter partes review, we apply the same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In applying this standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data 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))); see also Pet. 10 (“[N]o formal constructions are necessary.”); Prelim. Resp. 10 (“[N]o formal constructions are necessary.”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. With respect to Figure 22, Hall states: As shown in FIG. 22, behind each of the lenses in the cavity 174, are 16 laser emitters organized relatively horizontally, thereby combining for 32 total emitters. Behind the lens of the cavity 170 are 32 detectors that are positioned within a tube 176 of the unit 154. Ex. 1004, 6:67–7:5. Thus, Hall’s specification describes 32 detectors as being behind the lens of cavity 170. But, Annotated Figure 22 depicts 36 dark red circles, which does not match the 32 detectors described in Hall’s specification. Petitioner does not explain this discrepancy in the Petition. Petitioner cites to Dr. Hesselink’s testimony to support its assumption that Annotated Figure 22 shows the claimed arrangement of pixel columns. Pet. 20. Dr. Hesselink’s testimony is conclusory and deficient because it does not sufficiently explain why a POSITA would know the dark red circles in Annotated Figure 22 were the detectors. Ex. 1003, 65–66 (claim chart); see also id. ¶¶ 72–73. Petitioner next argues: “To the extent [Patent Owner] contends Hall does not disclose horizontal and vertical offset pixels, a POSITA would have found it obvious to arrange the pixels in this manner.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30–36, 66–17). Petitioner’s only support for this argument is the testimony of Dr. Hesselink. Pet. 21. Petitioner, thus, attempts to substitute the testimony of Dr. Hesselink to teach the claimed arrangement of pixels. But, as explained in our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide2 (November 2019) at 36: Expert testimony, however, cannot take the place of a disclosure in a prior art reference, when that disclosure is required as part of the unpatentability analysis . . . . [I]n an obviousness analysis, conclusory assertions from a third party about general knowledge in the art cannot, without supporting evidence of record, supply a limitation that is not evidently and indisputably within the common knowledge of those skilled in the art. K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Furthermore, because an inter partes review may only be requested “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications,” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), expert testimony cannot take the place of disclosure from patents or printed publications. In other words, expert testimony may explain “patents and printed publications,” but is not a substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself. Petitioner does not rely upon Borowski to teach the claimed arrangement of pixels. See generally Pet. 20–21. Because Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that the combination of Hall and Borowski teaches the arrangement of pixels recited by claim 1, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Hall and Borowski.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,422,236 - Sram, LLC v. Fox Factory, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 21, 2024 · IPR2023-01302 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–8 unpatentable under any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). 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 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and at least three years’ experience in vehicle suspension technology, or a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering with a concentration in design of vehicle suspension technology and/or shock absorbers.” Pet. 2, n.1 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 33; Ex. 1103 ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition. See generally, Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that claim construction is not necessary. Pet.7. Nonetheless, Petitioner contends that because of prosecution history disclaimer, the claim term “air bleed assembly” should be construed to be “located between the lower leg seal and the upper bushing.” Id. Patent Owner contends that this claim term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 13. In particular, Petitioner argues that “[t]he claim language itself makes it clear that the ‘air bleed assembly’ is located on the lower fork between the lower leg seal and a resting level of the oil bath in the lower fork.” Id. (citing Ex. 1101, 4:56– 5:4). We note that Petitioner acknowledges that “claim construction is not necessary because the claims of the ‘331 patent are invalid in view of the prior art regardless of whether Fox’s prosecution history disclaimer on the position of the “air bleed assembly” is included in the claim construction.” Pet. 7. Based on our review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, no” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Here, we understand Kashima to teach that when setscrew 6 is opened to release air in the clearance, oil is also released through the same opening. Ex. 1105 ¶ 4. In other words, the distance between setscrew 6 and the oil bath lubrication does not prevent the leakage of oil from the lower tube. Rather, setscrew 6 must be closed to prevent the oil from leaking and continuing to leak from the inside of outer tube 1. Indeed, Petitioner acknowledges the same. Petitioner asserts that “most if not all of the oil bath lubrication remains within the lower fork 1 because the valve is near the top of the lower fork 1 and can be closed once any oil begins to leak.” Pet. 26– 27 (citing Ex. 1105 ¶ 4). Here, Petitioner acknowledges that it is the closing of the setscrew that stops the oil leakage. However, claim 1 requires that the fluid passage and manually operable valve “are located at a distance from an oil bath lubrication within said lower fork, such that when said manually operable valve is in said second position, most, if not all of said oil bath lubrication remains within said lower fork[.]” Ex. 1001, 5:2–7 (emphases added).” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,739,331 - CSC Serviceworks, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 24, 2024 · IPR2023-01188 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–20 were obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“make the signal transmitted between CRMH 200 and gaming machine 180 emulate the pulses sent by Sugimoto’s coin switches 24A, 24B, and 24C to up-down counter 37. Pet. 36–43. Petitioner, however, does not adequately account for the difference between Laaroussi’s signal, Sugimoto’s pulses, and the particular pulses recited by limitation 1(c).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“and 24C producing coin detection pulses corresponding to the weight of received coins to cure the deficiency of Laaroussi. Pet. 40–43 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, 4:13–33, 5:31–66, 7:30–51, Fig. 2.). Sugimoto, however, does not teach sending coin switches 24A, 24B, and 24C’s pulses to vend control circuit 38 or a vender unit. See Ex. 1005, 5:31–47. Sugimoto teaches sending the pulses from coin switches 24A, 24B, and 24C to up-down counter 37, which adds up the amount of the deposited coins, and then sends that amount to vender control circuit 38. Id. Neither Larroussi nor Sugimoto, thus, teaches a coin receiving module sending the particular pulses recited by limitation 1(c) (“in response to insertion of a single coin”) to a gaming machine or other type of vending unit. Given this, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why a POSITA would modify Laaroussi to make the signal transmitted between CRMH 200 and gaming machine 180 emulate the single coin pulses sent by Sugimoto’s coin switches 24A, 24B, and 24C to up-down counter 37. See Pet. 24– 26 (arguing that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Laaroussi in view of Sugimoto because Sugimoto provides additional detail about a known component (e.g., a coin receiving module)). And, Dr. Neuman’s testimony does not provide any additional adequate explanation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–103 (substantially parroting the Petition).” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached
“Because we determine that the information presented in the Petition fails to shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of any of the claims the ’608 patent, we do not reach Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See Prelim. Resp. 12–18.” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot reached
“Because we determine that the information presented in the Petition fails to shows reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in do not need to reach Patent Owner’s argument concerning an alleged timebar under 35 U.S.C. § 315 due to unidentified real parties-in-interest. See Prelim. Resp. 6–12.” slip op. at 2
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,891,608 - CSC Serviceworks, Inc v. Payrange Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01187 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness 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 . . . 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) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’208 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed.Cir.1986)).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner states that, “for the purposes of this proceeding, the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner states that “the petition fails to account for all limitations at issue,” and, “[a]s such, no constructions are necessary to deny institution because the petition facially fails to show that the references satisfy the plain language of the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 5. Thus, neither party contends that any claim construction is necessary at this time. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. D. The Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 5–13, and 16–18 over Freeny” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner is relying on Kou’s semi-offline embodiment that is somewhat analogous to pre-loading money onto a merchant-specific gift card and completing a purchase by using the card at the merchant’s store. See Ex. 1005, 274-276. Petitioner does not explain adequately the basis for the implied assertion that there is no user selection of a service or item between the pre-authorization of an amount and the user completing the payment transaction by providing final authorization to the merchant. Pet. 23–24. Additionally, Petitioner does not describe adequately its proposed combination of Freeny and Kou and does not explain adequately how applying Kou’s pre-authorization scheme to Freeny’s machines providing a predetermined service would avoid any user selection of a service prior to the performance of all the steps of, e.g., independent claim 1. See Pet. 24 (Petitioner offering little more than the assertion that “a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Kou’s technique of pre-authorizing transactions in Freeny’s system.”); see also id. at 17–18 (“Reasons to Combine” section); cf. Prelim. Resp. 17 (Patent Owner arguing that “alleging that a POSITA would have incorporated pre-authorization into Freeny—a feature Petitioner alleges Freeny already has—does nothing to fix Petitioner’s conclusory discussion of activating predetermined services in Freeny.”); see Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. . . . Thus, it was Harmonic’s burden to explain to the Board how Haskell combined with Rossmere rendered the challenged claims unpatentable.”). We determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that Freeny or the combination of Freeny and Kou discloses or suggests that the pertinent steps recited in the independent claims are performed “prior to user selection of any items or services provided by an automatic retail machine.”” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,438,208 - PTAB · Dec 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00896 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7 and 12–15 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s argument and evidence is too general to establish obviousness. See 37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2) (Petitioner must include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts”). Petitioner cites to forty-four paragraphs of the Pratt Declaration, but does not explain how any of those paragraphs support its statement in the Petition. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–112, 140–144, 35–40, 63–85); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (“The Board may exclude or give no weight to evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.”). STP2003 is directed to an alarm with non-replaceable batteries that can be activated and deactivated. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 6. However, there is no disclosure of how the function is accomplished. Specifically, Petitioner does not identify any portion of STP2003 that teaches cooperating features on the first portion and the second portion configured to automatically activate the second portion upon initial attachment of the second portion to the first portion. See Pet. 13–14. None of the evidence cited by Petitioner, including the background of the ’158 patent, Watson, nor the Reinholtz Deposition, remedy this deficiency. In particular, Petitioner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood STP2003’s activation means to include the recited cooperating features. See id. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown all limitations of claim 1 would have been obvious over STP2003.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art as of “August 2003 had a Bachelor’s Degree in mechanical engineering or similar discipline.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 31). In addition, the person of ordinary skill “would have had knowledge of design considerations in the industry and would have been familiar with then-existing electro-mechanical products and solutions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 31). Patent Owner “does not dispute” Petitioner’s proposal and does not propose a different level of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 8. 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-129, 125 Stat. 284, 285–288 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Because the challenged patent was filed prior to March 16, 2013, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the statute. The findings and analysis in this Decision would be the same under the AIA version. the art reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“The District Court in the Texas Litigation issued a “Claim Construction Order” (“Markman Order”) on February 15, 2023. Ex. 1019. With some qualifiers not relevant here, the Markman Order applied the plain and ordinary meaning to all claim terms. Id. Petitioner cites the Markman Order and, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding,” applies the plain and ordinary meaning for all claim terms. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1019; Ex. 10203). Patent Owner also cites to the Markman Order and agrees with application of the plain and ordinary meaning to all claim terms. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 1019; Ex. 20044). 3 Texas Litigation “Joint Claim Construction Statement.” 4 Texas Litigation “Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief.” “an activating/deactivating system” and “activate/deactivate system” terms are means plus function limitations because, regardless of their construction, Petitioner fails to show that any reference discloses the same or an equivalent structure. On the record before us, we construe all claim terms to have their plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner fails to explain why Malewski’s mating-based activation embodiments would be combined with the activation key-based embodiment and how such a combination would satisfy both limitations of the same device. See Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC, IPR2017-01204, Paper 9 at 8–12 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2017) (denying institution where no explanation provided for how different embodiments of a reference were interchangeable or why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found it obvious to combine their respective teachings). Prelim. Resp. 23. We agree with Patent Owner that the record fails to support sufficient reasoning as to why the various embodiments of Malewski would have been combined to meet the Limitations [1c] and [1d]. We have reviewed paragraphs 190 through 200, which is the testimony of Dr. Pratt regarding the two limitations. None of it provides any reasoning as to why Malewski’s separate embodiments would have been combined to show either limitation.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,123,158 - PTAB · Dec 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00898 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 8–11 were unpatentable as obvious over any asserted ground.
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 mechanical engineering or similar discipline” and “knowledge of design considerations in the industry and . . . familiar[ity] with then-existing electro-mechanical products and solutions.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 31). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. John Pratt. Ex. 1002 ¶ 33. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. Prelim. Resp. 9. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“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. 5; Prelim. Resp. 9. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“STP2003’s “means to activate the power” is a mechanism. Prelim. Resp. 10–13. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner for two reasons. First, Petitioner states that STP2003’s “means” is a mechanism, but does not provide a specific explanation to support that statement. See Pet. 13. In particular, Petitioner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood (or found it obvious) that STP2003’s “means” is a mechanism. See id. Petitioner cites to thirty paragraphs of the Pratt Declaration, but does not explain how any of those paragraphs support its statement in the Petition. See id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–40, 63–85, 127); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (“The Board may exclude or give no weight to evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that the support the challenge.”).” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,525,445
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.