- ROKU, Inc. v. Ioengine, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-01554 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 17–21, 25–35, 59–69, 85–89, and 93–99 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and no compelling merits challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“The Fintiv Memo directs that “compelling, meritorious challenges will be allowed to proceed at the PTAB even where district court litigation is proceeding in parallel.” Ex. 2011, 4. The Director defines “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges [as] those in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. We consider whether there are compelling merits when, as here, our analysis of the first five Fintiv factors favors denial of institution. See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential). For the reasons below, we determine that the Petition and the preliminary evidence do not present a compelling, meritorious challenge.7” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“In particular, the preliminary record does not plainly show that Alger or the other references teach or disclose a portable device and a separate terminal with processing capabilities sufficient to facilitate a key exchange between the terminal and the portable device as recited in the claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1301, 32:48–53, 33:26–30.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,972,584 - ROKU, Inc. v. Ioengine, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-01553 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–16, 22–24, 36–53, 58, 70–84, and 90–92, exercising § 314(a) discretion under Fintiv.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“A holistic balancing of the Fintiv factors weighs in favor of discretionary denial. As discussed above, only factor 4 weighs against discretionary denial, and factors 2 and 3 weigh heavily in favor. Moreover, Roku has not submitted a Sotera-type stipulation that would make discretionary denial inappropriate under the Fintiv Memo, and likewise, the Petition does not show compelling evidence of unpatentability under factor 6. Given the late stage of the parallel district court proceeding, the substantial investment by the parties in that proceeding, and the lack of strong countervailing considerations, the evidence of record favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review challenging claims 1– 16, 22–24, 36–53, 58, 70–84, and 90–92 of the ’584 patent. V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“In particular, the preliminary record does not plainly show that Alger or the other references teach or disclose a portable device and a separate terminal with processing capabilities sufficient to facilitate a key exchange between the terminal and the portable device as recited in the claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1201, 32:48–53, 33:26–30. In the Petition, Roku contends that “Alger’s PDA 120 is a ‘portable device,’” and that “Alger’s ‘monitor 147,’ which includes a screen/display, . . . , is the ‘terminal comprising . . . an output component’ in Claim 1.” Pet. 28–30 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 153–154, 158). Roku relies on Lyle for teaching the use of HDCP, which involves the exchange of a key between a transmitter and a receiver. See Pet. 71–72. In response, IOENGINE argues that “[t]he only alleged ‘terminal’ that [Roku] identifies in either reference is Alger’s monitor 147,” but according to IOENGINE, Alger’s monitor 147 “is merely an ‘output component’ with no processor or memory as required by every Challenged Claim.” Prelim. Resp. 26–27. IOENGINE argues that at the time of Alger’s disclosure, monitors such as monitor 147 did not have general-purpose computing capabilities that could facilitate a key exchange. Id. at 27 (Ex. 2001 ¶ 88).” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,972,584 - ROKU, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-01552 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 17–21, 25–35, 59–69, 85–89, and 93–99 because the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Ex. 2011, 3 (footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential)). Roku’s stipulation, however, falls far short of a Sotera-type stipulation that would bar Roku from pursuing any grounds in the parallel district court proceeding that could have reasonably been raised before the Board. Thus, while Roku’s stipulation would prevent some overlap between this proceeding and the parallel district court proceeding, the scope of the stipulation does not rise to the level contemplated in the Fintiv Memo. Thus, although we find that the fourth Fintiv factor weighs somewhat against discretionary denial of institution, this does not end our analysis because Roku has declined to submit a Sotera-type stipulation.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“§ 42.4(a), we may only institute an inter partes review when “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) (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2022). However, institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See 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.”). For the reasons below, we exercise our discretion not to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we find it a close issue whether Ozawa discloses a “portable device” as recited in unchallenged independent claims 1, 39, and 73, which is also part of the challenged dependent claims. In claims 1 and 39, the term “portable device” is introduced in the preamble and appears throughout the claims. See Ex. 1101, 32:46–33:30, 36:32–37:11. In claim 73, a “portable device” is recited as an element of the claimed system. See id. at 39:44–40:20. In its Petition, Roku assumes, for its arguments, that the claim preambles, including the term “portable,” are limiting. See Pet. 24, 27–28. In its Preliminary Response, IOENGINE argues that “[t]he term ‘portable device’ is limiting because it provides antecedent basis for 11 instances in the body of claim 1,” and because the specification specifically focused on portability as an important feature of the invention. Prelim. Resp. 11–13. We agree with IOENGINE that the claim preambles are limiting at least to the extent that “portable” is a necessary feature of the portable device recited in the claims. We also point out that in the parallel district court litigation, the court specifically held that the preambles of claims 1, 39, and 73 are limiting. See Ex. 2008, 29–31. We agree with the district court’s analysis.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“In light of IOENGINE’s preliminary arguments, we find the issue of whether Ozawa discloses a “portable device” to be a close issue. The 9 IOENGINE erroneously identifies the Preliminary Infringement Contentions as Exhibit 1116 rather than Exhibit 1118. evidence does not plainly support Roku’s position at this stage, and the question would need to be further developed at trial. Because the “portable device” limitation is part of all challenged claims, Roku would need to prevail on this issue to prevail on any claim at trial. Thus, we determine that Roku has not, at this stage, presented a “compelling, meritorious challenge[]” to any claim of the ’584 patent. Ex. 2011, 4. Accordingly, we find that the sixth Fintiv factor does not weigh against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,972,584 - ROKU, Inc. v. Ioengine, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-01551 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under Fintiv, citing the advanced parallel district court case and finding no compelling merits challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“We agree with IOENGINE that trial in the parallel district court proceeding is likely to be about six months prior to the due date for our final written decision if we were to institute an inter partes review. Because the district court would address issues relating to the validity of the ’584 patent well before we would issue a final written decision, we find that the second Fintiv factor weighs heavily in favor of discretionary denial of institution.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“We agree with IOENGINE that the claim preambles are limiting at least to the extent that “portable” is a necessary feature of the portable device recited in the claims. We also point out that in the parallel district 5 Our compelling-merits analysis relies on the parties’ agreed understanding of the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, which Roku articulates in its Petition. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 60); Prelim. Resp. 8–9; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (the level of ordinary skill is pertinent to claim construction); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966) (the level of ordinary skill is one of the factors to consider when determining obviousness). court litigation, the court specifically held that the preambles of claims 1, 39, and 73 are limiting. See Ex. 2008, 29–31. We agree with the district court’s analysis.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In light of IOENGINE’s preliminary arguments, we find the issue of whether Ozawa discloses a “portable device” to be a close issue. The evidence does not plainly support Roku’s position at this stage, and the question would need to be further developed at trial. Because the “portable device” limitation is part of all challenged claims, Roku would need to prevail on this issue to prevail on any claim at trial. Thus, we determine that Roku has not, at this stage, presented a “compelling, meritorious challenge[]” to any claim of the ’584 patent. Ex. 2011, 4. Accordingly, we find that the sixth Fintiv factor does not weigh against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 17
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,972,584 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. California Institute Of TechnologyInstitution deniedPTAB · May 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00133 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under Fintiv because the advanced parallel litigation outweighed the stipulation, and the petition did not present compelling merits for any challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“The district court has already denied a motion for a stay, and the reasoning in its decision on the motion indicates that the court is unlikely to grant a renewed motion. See Ex. 2002, 5–6 (finding that the advanced stage of the underlying litigation disfavors a stay and that a stay is unlikely to simplify the issues in the underlying litigation). Thus, we find that this factor weighs in favor of exercising authority to deny institution. See Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6–7.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree that Kobayashi provides scant details on the operation of its outer encoder, which Petitioner attempts to fill in with expert testimony on Hamming coders and matrix multiplication generally. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28– 35, 65. Patent Owner, on the other hand, provides argument based on Kobayashi’s disclosure and Petitioner’s own characterization of that disclosure that appears, on this record, to contradict Petitioner’s arguments. Even if, hypothetically, we were to deem Petitioner’s showing on the record before us to be adequate under the lesser reasonable likelihood standard (again, a finding we do not make), we apply a higher compelling merits standard for our analysis of the sixth Fintiv factor, and find Petitioner has not met that higher standard. In short, on the record before us, for the reasons noted above, we do not view Petitioner’s evidence as plainly leading to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. See Interim Procedure 4. We, therefore, find Petitioner’s showing as to the independent claims is not compelling.” slip op. at 31
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,421,032 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. California Institute Of TechnologyInstitution deniedPTAB · May 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00130 · APJ Amber L Hagy · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 314(a), finding the advanced parallel litigation outweighed the stipulation and the merits were not compelling.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“The district court has already denied a motion for a stay, and the reasoning in its decision on the motion indicates that the court is unlikely to grant a renewed motion. See Ex. 2002, 5–6 (finding that the advanced stage of the underlying litigation disfavors a stay and that a stay is unlikely to simplify the issues in the underlying litigation). Thus, we find that this factor weighs in favor of exercising authority to deny institution. See Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6–7.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“In short, on the record before us, for the reasons noted above, we do not view Petitioner’s evidence as plainly leading to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. See Interim Procedure 4. We, therefore, find Petitioner’s showing as to the independent claims is not compelling. Petitioner’s arguments for the dependent claims and the other grounds (including the ground based on the combination with McEliece) (Pet. 19–56) do not cure the above deficiencies. Thus, Petitioner’s showing of unpatentability is not compelling for any of the challenged claims under any of the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 29
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,116,710 - PTAB · Jan 19, 2023 · IPR2022-01233 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–10, 13, 14, 16, and 21 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors decisively favored discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“§ 314(a). See NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential); Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 58 & n.2 (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”)8. We consider the following factors to assess “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. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). 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 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). However, we have discretion to deny a petition even if a petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” threshold standard for instituting trial. See, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review of the ’071 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“We do not agree with Petitioner’s assertion that it presents a “compelling unpatentability challenge.” Pet. 86; Reply 2–5. Weighing the arguments and evidence presently of record, we do not find Petitioner’s evidence sufficient to “plainly” result in a conclusion of unpatentability. Fintiv Memo 5 n.6; Pet. 9–81; Prelim. Resp. 16–43. For example, in the challenge based on Kim, we do not find Petitioner’s evidence regarding claim elements [1.4] and [21.3] sufficient to plainly lead to a conclusion of unpatentability. See Pet. 12–18, 28; Prelim. Resp. 21–25. We find significant merit in Patent Owner’s position that Petitioner fails to address persuasively limitation [1.4]’s recitation of “distinguishing the information simultaneously received from each of the transmitting nodes according to their respective said unique estimated signal parameters” and similar language in element [21.3]. Prelim. Resp. 21–25. Patent Owner presents viable arguments that Petitioner addresses this claim language with evidence that is unavailing, for instance, because it relates to Kim’s request channel, whereas Petitioner’s evidence for earlier, related limitations relates to traffic data. Id. As another example, we find significant merit in Patent Owner’s position that Petitioner’s Baum-based challenge relies on different embodiments of Baum without providing sufficiently persuasive evidence that the different embodiments would apply to one another. See Pet. 75–76 (relying on “joint detection”); Prelim. Resp. 41 (“First, the Petition combines multiple embodiments from Baum, but without any explanation of why the teachings relating to the non-joint detection embodiment would apply to the joint detection embodiment so as to teach distinguishing the individual signal components of the ‘joint desired signal.’”); see also Reply 5; Sur-reply 5. Petitioner apparently views the disclosures in Baum’s columns 18–21 as all discussing the same embodiment, but Petitioner does not provide sufficiently persuasive support for this position. See Pet. 75–76; Reply 5.” slip op. at 17
- BurdenNot reached
“We do not agree with Petitioner’s assertion that it presents a “compelling unpatentability challenge.” Pet. 86; Reply 2–5. Weighing the arguments and evidence presently of record, we do not find Petitioner’s evidence sufficient to “plainly” result in a conclusion of unpatentability. Fintiv Memo 5 n.6; Pet. 9–81; Prelim. Resp. 16–43. For example, in the challenge based on Kim, we do not find Petitioner’s evidence regarding claim elements [1.4] and [21.3] sufficient to plainly lead to a conclusion of unpatentability. See Pet. 12–18, 28; Prelim. Resp. 21–25. We find significant merit in Patent Owner’s position that Petitioner fails to address persuasively limitation [1.4]’s recitation of “distinguishing the information simultaneously received from each of the transmitting nodes according to their respective said unique estimated signal parameters” and similar language in element [21.3]. Prelim. Resp. 21–25. Patent Owner presents viable arguments that Petitioner addresses this claim language with evidence that is unavailing, for instance, because it relates to Kim’s request channel, whereas Petitioner’s evidence for earlier, related limitations relates to traffic data. Id. As another example, we find significant merit in Patent Owner’s position that Petitioner’s Baum-based challenge relies on different embodiments of Baum without providing sufficiently persuasive evidence that the different embodiments would apply to one another. See Pet. 75–76 (relying on “joint detection”); Prelim. Resp. 41 (“First, the Petition combines multiple embodiments from Baum, but without any explanation of why the teachings relating to the non-joint detection embodiment would apply to the joint detection embodiment so as to teach distinguishing the individual signal components of the ‘joint desired signal.’”); see also Reply 5; Sur-reply 5. Petitioner apparently views the disclosures in Baum’s columns 18–21 as all discussing the same embodiment, but Petitioner does not provide sufficiently persuasive support for this position. See Pet. 75–76; Reply 5.” slip op. at 17
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,814,071 - Nokia Of America Corporation / Ericsson Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 2, 2022 · IPR2022-00755 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and that the challenges to claims 14–19 were not compelling.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Accordingly, this factor weighs heavily in favor of exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In sum, we find that Petitioner’s arguments, and Dr. Fuja’s cited testimony, are not compelling. Accordingly, Petitioner’s showing as to independent claim 14 is less than a “compelling, meritorious challenge[].” In addition, claims 15–19 depend from claim 14, and Petitioner’s arguments for these dependent claims do not cure the above deficiencies for independent claim 14. Pet. 26– 31. Likewise, Petitioner’s arguments for dependent claims 15 and 18 for the remaining ground (Kotecha combined with R1-081126) do not cure the above deficiencies for independent claim 14. Pet. 31–34. Thus, Petitioner’s showing of unpatentability is not compelling for any of the challenged claims for any of the asserted grounds. VII. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition. VIII. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot reached
“We find that Petitioner’s arguments are not compelling. First, we have doubts as to whether Kotecha (i) teaches a scheme “which utilizes a CQI trigger, a particular MCS value, and other fields present in the uplink grant” or (ii) “encourages [one of ordinary skill in the art] to use fields in addition to the MCS field.” Pet. 23–24. Rather, it appears that Kotecha teaches in its discussion regarding using a CQI trigger and a particular MCS value that “different fields, other than the MCS field, may be reused according to [Kotecha’s] disclosure to clearly signal whether an uplink grant is for only CQI or CQI and data.” See Ex. 1004, 4:23–43 (emphasis added). Hence, Kotecha teaches using other fields in lieu of—not in addition to—the MCS field. Id. Moreover, Kotecha’s teachings regarding using “one or more fields” to indicate only CQI or CQI and data identify the CQI request and MCS fields, as examples, without identifying additional fields, nor requiring the use of these fields. See id. at 7:19–22, 8:15–20, Fig. 6. Thus, these teachings also do not provide compelling support for Petitioner’s arguments that Kotecha encourages adding a third field to the CQI request and MCS fields combination. Id. Second, we find uncompelling Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to try using the . . . (RB) assignment field as a further indication of whether to multiplex CQI with data,” which “is one of only seven other possible fields for [one of ordinary skill in the art] to consider.” Pet. 25. This argument is premised on Kotecha encouraging using a third field—and only a third field—in addition to the CQI request and MCS fields, which, as we discuss above, Kotecha does not. Rather, choosing any three, for example, of the nine fields in the uplink grant would yield 84 possible combinations. See Ex. 1004, 1:25–34 (listing nine fields); Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (testifying that “Kotecha identifies nine fields in the uplink grant”). Yet more combinations are possible if combinations having other numbers of fields are employed. “[T]he breadth of these choices and the numerous combinations indicate that these disclosures would not have rendered the claimed invention obvious to try.” Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Rolls–Royce PLC v. United Techs. Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Nor does Petitioner cite to any guidance provided in Kotecha about which combinations of fields would likely be successful in arguing that the claimed three field combination would have been obvious to try. See In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]here a defendant merely throws metaphorical darts at a board filled with combinatorial prior art possibilities, courts should not succumb to hindsight claims of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Third, we do not find compelling Dr. Fuja’s cited testimony, which in our view, and taken as a whole, risks using impermissible hindsight to reconstruct the invention of claim 14. See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” (citation omitted)). For example, the testimony appears to be predicated incorrectly on Kotecha teaching using a third field (i.e., the resource assignment field) in addition to the CQI request and MCS fields, and the testimony instead tracks the claimed three field combination of claim 14. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–79. Moreover, Dr. Fuja opines that “it would have been obvious for [one of ordinary skill in the art] to use the resource assignment field in the uplink grant in addition to the CQI request bit and the MCS field because doing so provides additional flexibility and greater efficiency at no additional cost.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. We find this testimony to be conclusory as there is no factual support underlying Dr. Fuja’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to be obvious. Id. ¶¶ 77–83. Also, claim 14 recites more than just reusing the resource assignment field to indicate whether data should be multiplexed with the CQI report. Ex. 1001, 24:7–14. Rather, claim 14 also recites evaluating whether the indicated number of resource blocks “is smaller than or equal to a determined number of resource blocks.” Id. Kotecha does not teach this, nor does Dr. Fuja address it in a compelling way. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–83.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,385,239 - Ericsson Inc. / Nokia Of America Corporation v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 2, 2022 · IPR2022-00725 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–6 and 11–16 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the challenges were not compelling.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“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.”); 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board has held that the advanced state of a parallel district court action is a factor that may weigh in favor of denying a petition under § 314(a). See NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential); Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 58 & n.2 (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”)2. We consider the following factors to assess “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; 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’000 patent claims a filing date before March 16, 2013, the effective date of the relevant amendment, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf. 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. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). 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 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“implemented by a base station. As Petitioner points out, Classon describes a multicarrier communications system that includes a “base site” and “receiving platforms” (also referred to as “transmission targets”), which we find are a base station and mobile stations. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1005, code (57), ¶¶ 23, 27, 28, 31, Fig. 4). The parties dispute whether Classon (in light of the background knowledge of a skilled artisan or, in light of TR 25.858) teaches transmitting control information indicating whether a mobile station is to transmit one channel quality indicator (CQI) for each subcarrier block within a communication frequency band or one CQI for all subcarrier blocks within the communication frequency band instead of multiple CQIs for multiple subcarrier blocks within the communication frequency band, as recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claim 11). For the reasons given below, the case Petitioner advances is less than compelling.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Patent Owner’s argument has merit. Paragraphs 37–40 of Classon describe the base station determining what mode to use for communication based on the information (including CQI information) sent by the mobile units. Paragraph 41 states that “such channel quality information will preferably already be available to the base site” but that, if it is not available, “the base site can transmit 73 a message to the relevant transmission target or targets and request a reply that includes the relevant channel quality information.” Also, paragraph 41 states that “[w]ays in which such information can be provided to the base site will be described below in more detail.” This appears to be a reference to Classon’s description of the mobile stations, not the base station, determining that they are of “type 1” or “type 2” and sending channel quality information to the base station based on that determination, after which the base station determines whether to use the first mode or second mode in communications. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45–51. Thus, rather than supporting Petitioner’s position, the context around paragraph 41 appears in friction with that position. Petitioner does not explain how the base station determines a transmission mode (and thus a requested amount of CQI information) without first having that information from the mobile stations. Instead, it is reasonable to read paragraph 41 as requesting of the mobile stations information that the mobile stations deem appropriate; in other words, that the mobile stations determine whether to send a CQI value for each subcarrier or information on average channel quality. Even if it is sufficient to go forward on a theory that Classon implicitly teaches the claimed control message, the evidence Petitioner advances for this position is not compelling.” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“III. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(D) Petitioner argues that we should not deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 56. Patent Owner argues that we should. Prelim. Resp. 23– 28. Because we deny the Petition for other reasons, we do not reach whether we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under § 325(d).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,137,000 - Immersion Systems LLC v. Midas Green Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 31, 2022 · PGR2021-00104 · APJ Frederick C Laney · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR challenging claims 1, 5, 6, and 10, exercising discretion under § 324(a) based on the Fintiv factors.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Thus, a jury trial is scheduled to occur in the related district court litigation approximately four months prior to when a final written decision would be statutorily due in this post-grant review, and the district court has indicated that any changes to the schedule, including the trial date, are disfavored. We find these facts weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution under this factor.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundOther
“For example, under Petitioner’s Ground 1, although Petitioner’s and its witness’s (Dr. Mudawar’s) interpretations of the prior art as teaching the claimed subject matter are not unreasonable, the interpretations are not particularly clear or strong. Pet. 14–27. Petitioner pieces together portions from Best, Krajewski, and/or Cray that do not explicitly disclose the claimed subject matter, relying instead on Dr. Mudawar to interpret the references’ disclosures as meeting specific claim limitations. Id. Further, Petitioner, for the most part, asserts that each limitation of, for example, independent claim 1, is individually disclosed by one or more of Best, Krajewski, and/or Cray without clearly explaining how one reference’s disclosed apparatus or system would be specifically modified by the ordinarily skilled artisan in view of the teachings of the others. Id. Moreover, when discussing a motivation to combine Best, Krajewski, and/or Cray, Petitioner relies on the fact that they are directed to analogous art and then, primarily, that the features they teach would achieve the same advantages extolled by the ’446 patent itself for its claimed invention, which is not strong support that the prior art would have been combined or modified absent some improper hindsight. Id. at 30–35. Thus, although Petitioner may have made a sufficient showing for” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,820,446
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.