- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Evolved Wireless LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · IPR2021-00950 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 14–16 and 18–20, exercising § 314(a) discretion under Fintiv because the ITC investigation was advanced and the preliminary merits were a closer call.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“In evaluating whether to do so, we consider the following factors in assessing “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding”: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Fintiv at 5–6. In evaluating these factors, we “take[] a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“B. Analysis Institution of an inter partes review is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018) (stating “[t]he Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that 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”) (emphasis added); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). The advanced state of either a parallel district court action or a parallel ITC investigation may warrant exercising discretion on behalf of the Director to deny a petition for inter partes review. See NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential) (“NHK”); Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6, 8 (PTAB March 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 58 & n.2, available at” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner contends that Nokia discloses, “in the context of the disclosed handover operations, performing a contention free . . . RACH procedure (step 5 [of Nokia’s Figure 1]), wherein the identifier information necessary for the UE to communicate with the target base station during the RACH procedure was previously transmitted in a message from the source base station to the UE (e.g., Handover Command, Step 4).” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶ 92). Petitioner motivates its reasoning for effecting a combination of Nokia with Hu by contending that a person of skill in the art “would recognize that the specific implementation of such a conventional, contention free RACH procedure as referenced in Nokia could be implemented using” a variety of known methods. Id. at 33. Such a person “would also have recognized,” Petitioner further contends, “that using conventional RACH procedures wherein each UE is assigned and uses its own different preamble would make the handover process quicker and more efficient by reducing contention between the mobile station and the other mobile stations on the RACH.” Id. Petitioner relies on such features to argue that “Hu discloses the full implementation level details of how such a conventional, contention free RACH procedure using allocated resources in the form of a dedicated code resource (i.e., a dedicated preamble) is performed.” Id. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s reading of Nokia, particularly that it discloses a contention-free RACH procedure. See Prelim. Resp. 36–43. Patent Owner correctly observes that the timing alignment in step 5 of Nokia’s Figure 1 “involves one of two different procedures: a ‘one or two step RACH procedure’ OR a ‘Non contention based access burst.’” Id. at 37. Patent Owner elaborates that, although Nokia teaches that the “UE receives allocation(s)” that can be used in an access burst in the second of these procedures, Nokia “does not even teach what an ‘access burst’ is or how it would be used in a non-contention-based manner—and certainly does not teach or suggest that the non-contention-based manner would involve a RACH procedure.” Id. at 38. Patent Owner further supports its position with “[o]ther contemporaneous submissions by Nokia [that] confirm this and explain what Nokia meant by a contention-free access burst procedure,” as well as LTE standards documents. Id. at 38–43 (citing Ex. 2009, 1–2; Ex. 2010 § 10.1; Ex. 2011 § 10.1.2.1; Ex. 2012 § 10.1.2.1). We have reviewed this evidence, and find on this record that it provides some support for Patent Owner’s position. The merits of this case thus present the “closer call” that favors exercising discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review under Fintiv.” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Evolved Wireless LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · IPR2021-00949 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of inter partes review of claims 1–3 and 6–8, exercising § 314(a) discretion under Fintiv because most factors favored denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“The merits of this case thus present the “closer call” that favors exercising discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review under Fintiv. 7. Conclusion As noted in Fintiv, we consider the above factors as part of “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Fintiv at 6. In this instance, most of the factors we consider weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review, with Fintiv factor 4 weighing only somewhat against. We accordingly exercise that discretion and deny the Petition.” slip op. at 20
Discretionary denial - PTAB · Oct 7, 2021 · IPR2021-00670 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 14–38 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.
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.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded that a “graphics controller” is merely a graphics interface in the context of the ’140 patent. As Patent Owner explains, “[t]he ‘graphics controller’ of the ’140 patent has graphics processing functionality, and is not just a connection to a separate component for processing graphics.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s declarant, Marc Levitt, Ph.D., testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a graphics interface is not a graphics controller because a graphics interface is “simply the interface for connecting an external graphics processor to the processor module” and the “graphics interface itself provides no actual graphics processing functionality.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 72−73. We credit Dr. Levitt’s testimony as it is consistent with the Specification and the general knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 19:10−13, Figs. 19, 20; Ex. 3001 (IEEE Dictionary), 3 (defining “interface” as “[a] hardware or software component” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill as articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, this proposal appears to be consistent with the ’140 patent, prior art of record, and the testimony of Dr. Edwards.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“interface in the context of the ’140 patent. As Patent Owner explains, “[t]he ‘graphics controller’ of the ’140 patent has graphics processing functionality, and is not just a connection to a separate component for processing graphics.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s declarant, Marc Levitt, Ph.D., testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a graphics interface is not a graphics controller because a graphics interface is “simply the interface for connecting an external graphics processor to the processor module” and the “graphics interface itself provides no actual graphics processing functionality.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 72−73. We credit Dr. Levitt’s testimony as it is consistent with the Specification and the general knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 19:10−13, Figs. 19, 20; Ex. 3001 (IEEE Dictionary), 3 (defining “interface” as “[a] hardware or software component” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham - PTAB · Sep 20, 2021 · IPR2021-00669 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized “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). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing unpatentability of the challenged claims of the ’654 patent. Accordingly, no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“bit at a time on a single path.’” Prelim. Resp. 20 (quoting Ex. 2002, 11 (IEEE Dictionary) (defining “serial transmission”); citing Ex. 1001, 20:66−21:3 (“describing ‘bit based line’ ‘for transmitting serial bits’”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 76). Based on the evidence before us, we agree with Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction. Ex. 1001, 20:66−21:3; Ex. 2001 ¶ 76; Ex. 2002, 9, 11.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“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)). In that regard, relying on the declaration of Dr. Edwards, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ʼ654 patent’s invention would have had “at least a Master’s Degree in, or a related subject, or a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related subject and three years of experience working with computer architecture, computer busses, and related technologies.” Pet. 9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–47.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“teach the claimed “graphics controller,” citing Dr. Edwards’ testimony for support. Pet. 22−23 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:21–25, 23:54–57; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72– 73). However, as discussed above in our claim construction analysis, in the context of the ’654 patent, a “graphics controller” is a processing unit having graphics processing functionality (e.g., producing graphical video output), and thus, not merely a graphics interface. As Dr. Levitt testifies, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a graphics interface is not a graphic controller, because “the graphics interface is simply the interface for connecting an external graphics processor to the processor module,” wherein “[t]he graphics interface itself provides no actual graphics processing functionality.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 72. We credit Dr. Levitt’s testimony as it is consistent with the Specification and the general knowledge of an 26 ordinarily skilled artisan. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:4−17, 19:4−9, Figs. 3, 19, 20.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham - ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 13, 2021 · IPR2019-01595 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution on claims 1 and 2, finding no abuse of discretion on priority entitlement or motivation to combine Darbee and Golender.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the challenging party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in a 1 Petitioner also filed a request for the Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) to review the Decision (Paper 13 (Notification of Receipt of POP Request)), which the POP denied (Paper 14 (Order)). paper of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Because Petitioner seeks rehearing of our Decision denying institution of trial based on the Petition, it must show an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.”). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“issue upon which the priority determination turns—what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art—because Dr. Medvidovic did not provide any testimony on that issue. And we did not overlook or misapprehend any testimony of Dr. Medvidovic regarding what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art because we could not have overlooked or misapprehended any testimony that was not presented in the Medvidovic Declaration. As discussed above, Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony based on what is expressly disclosed in or necessarily follows from the disclosures of the priority applications was insufficient because Dr. Medvidovic did not explain adequately why the disclosures in the priority applications would not reasonably have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the User Action Limitation. Thus, Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Bear, provided detailed testimony and explanations regarding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the priority applications to describe the subject matter recited in the User Action Limitation (see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 111–122, 126–127), Dr. Medvidovic did not provide adequate testimony or explanations to the contrary on the issue (see Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 53–63).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“misapprehend or overlook 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The mere fact that Dr. Medvidovic provided testimony different from the testimony of Mr. Bear does not by itself raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The mere existence in the record of dueling expert testimony does not necessarily raise a genuine issue of material fact.”). As the Request acknowledges, Dr. Medvidovic in his Declaration (Ex. 1010, “Medvidovic Declaration”) testified that the subject matter of the User Action Limitation is “neither expressly disclosed [in] nor necessarily follows from” the descriptions in the priority applications about event journal data. Req. 3 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 57–62). As discussed above, however, the test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351. The record shows that Dr. Medvidovic did not provide any testimony in his Declaration as to what the disclosures in the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 53–63. Nor did Dr. Medvidovic explain adequately in his Declaration why the disclosures in the priority applications would not reasonably have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the User Action Limitation. See id.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, however, “less education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 64–67). As stated in the Bear Declaration, Mr. Bear’s work experience includes at least 9 years of computer software programming using a variety of coding languages, such as BASIC, Pascal, C, C++, and 68000 Assembly Language. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–12. Thus, Mr. Bear is qualified to testify from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art under Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. As discussed in the Decision, although we did not find the parties’ proposals for the level of ordinary skill in the art to be materially different, to the extent the testimony from the parties’ declarants on the level of ordinary skill in the art raised a genuine issue of material fact, we adopted and applied Petitioner’s definition for purposes of the Decision, being mindful of the rule that “a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” Dec. 9 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)). Thus, the record shows that, under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in consideration of § 42.108(c), the Decision appropriately credited Mr. Bear’s testimony on what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,015,446 - PTAB · Sep 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00282 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Samsung’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“a party requests rehearing on a decision on whether to institute inter partes review, we “review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2019). There is an abuse of discretion if we have made “a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors or in basing [our] decision on an error of law or on clearly erroneous factual findings.” Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 851 F.3d 1302, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys., Inc., 150 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). In a request for rehearing, “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We disagree. Nowhere in the cited passages in the Petition does Samsung argue that we should construe the term “row wrap-around connections” according to the explicit construction that Samsung now suggests for the plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 10–11, 25–30. Rather, Samsung argued that “Petitioners do not believe any term requires explicit construction.” Pet. 10–11. In the Reply, Samsung argued that all of the terms in the challenged claims should be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning. See Reply 1, 4–5. However, apart from arguing that Samsung had proposed construing limitation 1C in the co-pending district court proceeding according to its plain and ordinary meaning,3 Samsung did not propose any specific construction for the phrase “row wrap-around connection,” or point to any evidence as to what the ordinary and customary meaning of that phrase was to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we decline to adopt Samsung’s new proposed construction on rehearing.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We determined that Samsung had not provided sufficient evidence of its proposed motivation to combine the two references. See Dec. 16 (“[N]either Samsung nor Dr. Wolfe supports this conclusion with any evidence on the preliminary record.” (citing In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3))). In particular, we found that “Dr. Wolfe does not explain how or why the combination of Barkan and Tagg would minimize RC delay or allow for the use of lengthier columns and rows of electrodes, or cite to any facts, data, or authorities to support that opinion.” Dec. 17. We stated that “there is no evidence in the record suggesting that RC delay was a recognized problem . . . or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a connection to both sides of a row of electrodes would be a solution to that problem.” Id. We also stated that Dr. Wolfe does not “provide any detail as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Barkan’s leads 160 to incorporate external connections such as those in Tagg.” Id. (citing Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,821,502 - ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 16, 2020 · IPR2019-01608 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Roku did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 10 was unpatentable over any of the three asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“IV. CONCLUSION We have reviewed the Petition and Preliminary Response and have considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner. We find, on this record, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing claim 10 of the ’532 patent is unpatentable. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 25
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“But Petitioner contends that the claimed automatic creation is consistent with the process that the ’532 Patent describes as “manually” creating a macro—the programming by a user of a sequence of actions to be assigned to a single button as shown in Figures 22a–22g and related disclosure. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 24:7–47, Figs. 22a–22g; Ex. 1011 ¶ 47). Patent Owner argues that a proper understanding of the claim term should not encompass manually created macros, which in the ’532 Patent are distinct from “automatically or semi-automatically” created macros. See Prelim. Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001 23:67–24:10; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 93–103). We agree with Patent Owner. The Specification describes “two types of macros”—one “system generated” (automatically or semi-automatically) and one “user generated” such as a macro created when “the user . . . enter[s] a sequence of keystrokes to be stored as a macro.” Ex. 1001, 23:66– 24:10, 24:25–29, 19:67–20:19. Petitioner does not show support for a construction that would encompass the manually-created macros that are specifically described as distinct from the “automatically or semi-automatically” created macros. For these reasons we decline to adopt either proposed construction. Instead we determine that a macro generated when a user “manually program[s] a sequence of actions to be assigned to a single button such that that sequence can be repeated by a press of the single button” (Ex. 1001, 24:7–10) is not encompassed by the claim limitation. Beyond this, we do not deem it necessary to adopt a specific construction to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner reviews and advocates for adoption of the District Court’s determinations and reasoning. Prelim. Resp. 21–22. The District Court’s construction was based on its determination that, as this term relates to “the automatically created sequence of instructions” (emphasis added), the method step of limitation [10.3] must temporally follow the step of limitation [10.2], in which a program is used “to automatically create the sequence of instructions.” Ex. 1012, 46–47 (“Claim 10 . . . requires creating a sequence of instructions first and executing that automatically created sequence of instructions second.”). Thus, the District Court determined that “these claim limitations support that a user first interacts with an interface to create a sequence of instructions, and then separately executes those ‘automatically created’ instructions by pressing a particular button on the controlling device.” Id. at 47. Petitioner’s arguments address what the impact of adopting the proposed construction would be, but Petitioner does not propose an alternate construction. Pet. Reply passim. We agree with the District Court’s determination that the step of “causing the automatically created sequence of instructions to be executed …” ([10.3]) must occur after the creation in the “using a program to automatically create the sequence of instructions . . .” limitation ([10.2]), and the balance of the District Court’s reasoning. We construe “selection of a user input element” as “selection of a user input element separate from the one or more user interactions involved in creating the sequence of instructions.”” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“motivated to combine Humpleman and Walkenbach, but does not address Petitioner’s discussion of the motivation. Prelim. Resp. 41–42; see Pet. 29– 30. More persuasively, Patent Owner argues that “Humpleman describes the exact type of manual entry of steps by a user successfully distinguished from the prior art during prosecution.” Prelim. Resp. 42–43; see id. at 36. We agree. Humpleman teaches that the player piano macro “save[s] the particular steps taken by a user while interacting with the device’s HTML pages” and “[w]hen the player piano macro executes, it performs the particular sequence of instructions as if the user was accessing the respective home device HTML page(s) and executing the sequence of steps directly.” Ex. 1003, 30:26–33. We determine that a macro generated when a user “manually program[s] a sequence of actions to be assigned to a single button such that that sequence can be repeated by a press of the single button” is not encompassed by the proper construction of limitation [10.2]. See supra § III.C.a. Even if, as Petitioner argues, a combination of Humpleman and Walkenbach would teach or suggest that the particular steps taken by the user to be repeated later would be stored in the form of computer code, this distinction does not change the fact that Petitioner relies upon Humpleman’s teachings regarding a user manually programming a sequence of actions which is repeated when the macro is selected, which is excluded by our construction from teaching or suggesting limitation [10.2]. Therefore, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing claim 10 is unpatentable over the combination of Humpleman and Walkenbach.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,895,532 - Nichia Corporation / Osram Opto Semiconductors, Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 15, 2020 · IPR2019-01260 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any anticipation or obviousness challenge to claims 1, 2, 6, and 10.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 21 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Papers 23, 24. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“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. § 100(b); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner proposes that the term “base,” recited in independent claim 1 as well as dependent claim 6, be construed to mean “support or foundation,” and that the phrase “integral part of,” recited in dependent claim 2, be construed to mean “a part of a whole.” Pet. 20–24. Patent Owner contends that we “need not rule on Petitioners’ proposed claim constructions, because construction of those terms is not necessary in order to resolve the parties’ dispute.” Prelim. Resp. 8. Although we agree with Patent Owner that resolution of the parties’” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“dispute does not require construction of “base” or “integral part of,” we find it necessary, in light of the parties’ arguments, to consider the meaning of a “thermally conductive region in solderable thermal contact with the thermally conducting base,” recited in independent claim 1. Neither party addresses this phrase as a matter of claim construction, but both parties implicitly proffer a proposed construction in their arguments. See Pet. 41– 43; Prelim. Resp. 35–40. In particular, Petitioner takes the position that “the term ‘solderable’ does not mean that the ‘thermally conductive region’ is to be ‘solderable’ to the ‘thermally conducting base’; rather, ‘solderable’ requires the thermally conductive region to be ‘solderable’ to another structure outside the assembly.” Pet. 41–42. Conversely, Patent Owner contends that “the modifier ‘solderable’ in ‘solderable thermal contact’ . . . applies to the relationship between (1) the ‘thermally conductive region’ and (2) the ‘thermally conducting base.’” Prelim. Resp. 36. First, we find that the plain meaning of the phrase supports Patent Owner’s proposal. The adjectives “solderable” and “thermal” are grammatically parallel in the phrase, and there is no apparent reason why those adjectives do not each equivalently modify the noun “contact,” such that the “contact” between the thermally conductive region and the thermally conducting base must be both “solderable” and “thermal.” See Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (Patent Owner asserting that “[t]his term plainly requires ‘solderable” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,528,421 - Nichia Corporation / Osram Opto Semiconductors, Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 15, 2020 · IPR2019-01487 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claim 7 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Andrews anticipated or rendered the claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“But this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim as we have construed it. In particular, in advancing this contention, Petitioner does not present any argument or evidence that thermal contact pad 36 of Andrews is in “solderable thermal contact” with the combination of plate 51 and insulating film 49. Rather, because we agree with Patent Owner that “‘solderable thermal contact’ requires solderability between the region and the base, not some other unclaimed structure,” we also agree with Patent Owner that “the Petition fails to show that Andrews teaches a ‘thermally conducti[ve] region’ solderable to a ‘thermally conducting base.’” Prelim. Resp. 30. In addition, Patent Owner specifically addresses the possibility that Andrews’s thermal contact pad 36 and insulating film 49 are in solderable contact, notwithstanding the omission of such an argument in the Petition. See id. at 30–31. Patent Owner observes that the bottom layer of what Petitioner identifies as the recited “thermally conducting base” is an electrically insulating film, and what Petitioner identifies as the recited “thermally conductive region” is an electrical conductor, “such as gold, silver, [or] tin.” Id. at 31 (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 70). Patent Owner asserts that “[i]t is not possible to solder a conductor such as gold, silver, or tin to a nonconductive insulating film.” Id. at 31. That assertion is consistent with a technical dictionary’s definition of “solderability” as “[t]hat property of a metal surface to be readily wetted by molten solder.” See Ex. 3001 (definition by The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms) (emphasis added). In light of these considerations, we conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claim 7 as anticipated by Andrews.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“F. Summary Because we conclude that the Petition does not present a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that any challenged claim is unpatentable, we also deny the Motion for Joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (permitting joinder only where a properly filed petition “warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314”). We need not reach Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See Prelim. Resp. 47–56. III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder is denied.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that the level of skill in the art is apparent from the cited art and that such a person “would have had at least a B.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field, and four years’ experience designing semiconductor—including LED—packages.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–33). Patent Owner does not dispute this articulation, which we adopt for this Decision. See Prelim. Resp. 8.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“First, we find that the plain meaning of the phrase supports Patent Owner’s proposal. The adjectives “solderable” and “thermal” are grammatically parallel in the phrase, and there is no apparent reason why those adjectives do not each equivalently modify the noun “contact,” such that the “contact” between the thermally conductive region and the thermally conducting base must be both “solderable” and “thermal.” See Prelim. Resp. 25 (Patent Owner asserting that “[t]his term plainly requires ‘solderable thermal contact between a thermally conductive region and the thermally conductive base’”). Second, we find that the prosecution history of the ’421 patent also supports Patent Owner’s proposal. Although both parties cite the same relevant aspect of that prosecution history, they interpret it differently. See Pet. 33–34; Prelim. Resp. 26–29. When the application that matured into the ’421 patent was originally filed, independent claim 1 did not include the word “solderable,” but instead recited only that a bottom surface of the LED assembly include “a thermally conductive region in thermal contact with the thermally conducting base, for spreading heat transmitted to the base from the one or more LED die.” Ex. 1002, 21. After the Applicant successfully traversed an obviousness rejection based on a combination of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,847,935 (“Thaler”) and 6,565,239 (“Rizkin”), the Examiner rejected claim 1 as anticipated by U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2003/0189830 (Ex. 1011, “Sugimoto”). Id. at 109. Sugimoto describes a light-source apparatus using an LED in which light-emission efficiency is improved to achieve greater light-output intensity, operational life, and mechanical strength. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 1, 17. In responding to the anticipation rejection during prosecution to distinguish Sugimoto, the Applicant made two amendments to independent claim 1. First, the claim was amended to add the last limitation of the issued claim (“further comprising an LED assembly mount selected from the group consisting of an electrically insulated fastener and a solderable bonding pad”). Ex. 1002, 124. Second, the claim was amended to add the word “solderable” in the limitation at issue, thereby requiring that the “thermally conductive region [be] in solderable thermal contact with the thermally conducting base” (emphasis added). Id. Both of these aspects of Applicant’s amendments were identified by the Examiner in the reasons for allowance as not disclosed by Sugimoto. Id. at 167.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,528,421 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 16, 2019 · IPR2019-00060 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing only to address the overlooked construction dispute, but again denied institution because Jensen did not teach “mobile protection code.”
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“(“Dec. on Inst.”). The panel concluded that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the asserted obviousness grounds because, for a particular ground, Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Jensen1 teaches “mobile protection code.” Dec. on Inst. 11−12.2 Petitioner has filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 8 (“Req. Reh’g”). Petitioner argues that the scope for the claim term “mobile protection code” was in dispute, and that we “failed to resolve the key claim construction dispute between the parties.” Id. at 1. According to Petitioner, rehearing is warranted to resolve the claim construction dispute and “fix the plain error in the Institution Decision.” Id. We are persuaded that in failing to address Petitioner’s construction, we overlooked the matter raised in Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed infra, after giving due consideration to Petitioner’s argument, we are persuaded that our decision to deny institution was correct, and therefore we deny the request insofar as it calls upon us to institute trial.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“(“Dec. on Inst.”). The panel concluded that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the asserted obviousness grounds because, for a particular ground, Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Jensen1 teaches “mobile protection code.” Dec. on Inst. 11−12.2 Petitioner has filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 8 (“Req. Reh’g”). Petitioner argues that the scope for the claim term “mobile protection code” was in dispute, and that we “failed to resolve the key claim construction dispute between the parties.” Id. at 1. According to Petitioner, rehearing is warranted to resolve the claim construction dispute and “fix the plain error in the Institution Decision.” Id. We are persuaded that in failing to address Petitioner’s construction, we overlooked the matter raised in Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed infra, after giving due consideration to Petitioner’s argument, we are persuaded that our decision to deny institution was correct, and therefore we deny the request insofar as it calls upon us to institute trial.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“1 Protection Wrappers: A Simple and Portable Sandbox for Untrusted Applications, Proceedings on the 8th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop on Support for Composing Distributed Applications, filed in the record as Exhibit 1006. 2 We also exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d) and denied institution. Petitioner does not challenge the exercise of discretion in this request for rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“1 Protection Wrappers: A Simple and Portable Sandbox for Untrusted Applications, Proceedings on the 8th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop on Support for Composing Distributed Applications, filed in the record as Exhibit 1006. 2 We also exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d) and denied institution. Petitioner does not challenge the exercise of discretion in this request for rehearing.” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,647,633
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.