- Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00326 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a) based on Fintiv, finding that most factors favored denial and the obviousness challenges did not meet the compelling-merits standard.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“The second, third, and fifth Fintiv factors favor denial. The first factor is neutral, and only the fourth factor weighs slightly against denial. Thus, we determine that the first five Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial, and as such, we assess compelling merits. CommScope, Paper 23 at 5 (“In circumstances where, however, the Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors 1–5 favors denial of institution, the Board shall then assess compelling merits.”). The compelling merits standard is met if “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.” Guidance Memo 4. A challenge can only meet this standard “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 at 49 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2022) (precedential) (“OpenSky”).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(D) Patent Owner also argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution of inter partes review in this case under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because “Mahajan and Danciu constitute the same or substantially the same art that has already been considered by the Patent Office.” Prelim. Resp. 42. However, because we will not be instituting an inter partes review based on our discretion to deny the Petition under § 314(a), we need not determine whether it would be appropriate to discretionarily deny the Petition under § 325(d).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“the compelling merits standard, not the “reasonable likelihood” standard of § 314(a). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not show that Mahajan discloses or renders obvious the converted commands limitations of the claims. Particularly, all of the claims require that a media receiver (or computing device) receives a set of commands that is recognizable by the first type of media application and is converted via an API adapter to be recognizable by the first type of media playing application. Petitioner’s reliance on Mahajan’s Figure 3 for disclosing this limitation is not persuasive. Pet. 12–13, 39–41; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 178–179, 182. Mahajan’s Figure 3, with Patent Owner’s annotations added coloring for different platforms and different commands, is reproduced below. Prelim. Resp. 28. Mahajan’s Figure 3, reproduced above with Patent Owner’s added coloring, shows that user-commands 306A–I (red) for server 202’s media platform are genericized by server 202’s RTS media abstraction module 210 (orange) using RTS mapping table 302 and corresponding generic commands 308A–I, 310A–I (grey) are sent to client 204’s RTS media abstraction module 214 (blue), which then converts the generic commands into platform-specific media commands 312A–I (green) for the client 204’s media platform. Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 35–43. More particularly, Mahajan discloses that its “RTS abstraction module 210 can translate the intercepted platform specific media commands into generic or abstracted media commands.” Ex. 1114 ¶ 36 (emphasis added). Next, “[t]he generic media commands can be sent from the server [202]’s RTS media abstraction module 210 to the client [204]’s RTS media abstraction module 214.” Id. Then, “[t]he client [204]’s RTS media abstraction module 214 can translate the generic media commands . . . into media commands that are specific to the client [204]’s media platform 212.” Id. Mahajan also discloses that “server [202]’s RTS media abstraction module 210 can receive media commands that are specific to the server [210]’s media platform 208.” Id. ¶ 37 (emphasis added). Thus, only media commands 312A–I (green) are specific to client 204’s media platform 212, not commands 306A–I, nor commands 308A–I, nor commands 310A–I. See id. ¶¶ 39–41. It appears that Petitioner recognizes such by stating that “Mahajan’s server translates specific commands of a first type to genericized commands, the genericized commands are transmitted, and then Mahajan’s client translates those generic commands to specialized commands of a second type.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex.1114 ¶¶ 35–36, Figs. 1–2) (emphasis added); see also Prelim. Resp. 30 (citing Pet. 34–35, 59, arguing Petitioner concedes Mahajan’s RTS Media Abstraction module of the client converts the commands received by the client from the server). With these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that any conversion of generic commands into platform-specific media commands for Mahajan’s client 204’s media platform 212 (as colorized green in Figure 3 by Patent Owner) is performed on the client 204 side, not on the server 202 side and thus, “Mahajan does not disclose the claimed component receiving a set of converted commands—i.e., commands that have already been converted when they are received.” Prelim. Resp. 27–28. We further agree with Patent Owner’s assessment that “Mahajan teaches that the client receives the generic commands alleged to be in a universal format; it does not disclose commands that are receive[d] in a first format that corresponds to [or is recognizable by] the first type of media playing application, as the claims recite.” Id. at 28; see Pet. 29–31, 39, 41; Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 36, 63. Petitioner appears to agree by stating that in regard to Mahajan’s teachings, 1) commands for a type of media playing application on the server are received at Mahajan’s server, 2) the commands are translated into a universal command, 3) the universal command is transmitted to the client, 4) the client re-translates the universal command, and 5) the new specific command is executed. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 35–36, Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 1102 ¶ 159); see also Prelim. Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 13–14, 63).” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,086,934 - PTAB · Jun 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00136 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on challenged claim 1 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“Thus, in circumstances where the Board determines that the other Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial, the Board shall decline to discretionarily deny under Fintiv without reaching the compelling merits analysis. In circumstances where, however, the Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors 1–5 favors denial of institution, the Board shall then assess compelling merits. Id. at 4–5. In this case, Fintiv factors 1–5 favor denial. Specifically, weighing factors 1–5 in this case, we find that the approximately 8-month delay between the estimated trial date and the deadline for a final written decision in this IPR (factor 2), the progress of and investment made by the parties and the Court in the parallel district court case (factor 3), and the fact that Petitioner is also a party in the District Court Litigation (factor 5) outweigh Petitioner’s stipulation mitigating the concerns about overlap between the two proceedings (factor 4). Additionally, we find that factor 1 is neutral. Thus, we address whether the merits of Petitioner’s case are compelling.” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that it is appropriate for us to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution in this proceeding. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review based on the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the present record, Petitioner has not presented a compelling, meritorious case that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Petitioner bases its case upon a claim construction that it ascribes to Patent Owner, and then expressly criticizes as being inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language and the ’347 patent Specification. Pet. 14–15. Additionally, Petitioner does not provide reasoning or evidence showing why the applied construction is correct, and Patent Owner does not agree with the construction in the Preliminary Response. Id. Under these facts, Petitioner has failed to set forth a sufficient basis for us to find a compelling case of unpatentability. Our conclusion in this regard is consistent with the Board’s prior decisions in Hologic, Orthopediatrics, and Samsung, upon which Patent Owner relies. See Prelim. Resp. 10–14. Moreover, we find that the contrary cases upon which Petitioner relies are inapposite here because they involved alternative constructions advanced by the petitioner. For example, in 10X Genomics, the Board explained that: [E]ven if our rules and guidance were correctly interpreted as prohibiting a petitioner from relying solely on a claim construction it believes is incorrect, that is not what Petitioner has done here. Petitioner proposes alternative claim constructions and presents at least one ground of unpatentability for each construction. 10X Genomics, Paper 8 at 22 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Donnelly, also cited by Petitioner, the petition offered alternative constructions—the construction proposed by the patent owner in district court and the “proper construction” that the petitioner believed was the correct one. Donnelly, Paper 2 (Petition) at 29–33 (identifying alternative constructions of “grip portion”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not made a compelling, meritorious showing that “path parameter information,” as required by the challenged claims, is disclosed by or would have been obvious over Sesia. As a result, factor 6 does not weigh in favor of institution.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“Based on the present record, Petitioner has not presented a compelling, meritorious case that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Petitioner bases its case upon a claim construction that it ascribes to Patent Owner, and then expressly criticizes as being inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language and the ’347 patent Specification. Pet. 14–15. Additionally, Petitioner does not provide reasoning or evidence showing why the applied construction is correct, and Patent Owner does not agree with the construction in the Preliminary Response. Id. Under these facts, Petitioner has failed to set forth a sufficient basis for us to find a compelling case of unpatentability. Our conclusion in this regard is consistent with the Board’s prior decisions in Hologic, Orthopediatrics, and Samsung, upon which Patent Owner relies. See Prelim. Resp. 10–14. Moreover, we find that the contrary cases upon which Petitioner relies are inapposite here because they involved alternative constructions advanced by the petitioner. For example, in 10X Genomics, the Board explained that: [E]ven if our rules and guidance were correctly interpreted as prohibiting a petitioner from relying solely on a claim construction it believes is incorrect, that is not what Petitioner has done here. Petitioner proposes alternative claim constructions and presents at least one ground of unpatentability for each construction. 10X Genomics, Paper 8 at 22 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Donnelly, also cited by Petitioner, the petition offered alternative constructions—the construction proposed by the patent owner in district court and the “proper construction” that the petitioner believed was the correct one. Donnelly, Paper 2 (Petition) at 29–33 (identifying alternative constructions of “grip portion”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not made a compelling, meritorious showing that “path parameter information,” as required by the challenged claims, is disclosed by or would have been obvious over Sesia. As a result, factor 6 does not weigh in favor of institution.” slip op. at 23
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,891,347 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01098 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 12, finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“We agree with Patent Owner’s analysis based on the schedule in the district court’s docket control order. Ex. 2007. The fact that the time-to-trial statistics cited by Petitioner predict that a trial in May 2024 (Pet. 89), a date even earlier than the trial date set in the court’s docket control order, confirms that the schedule set by the district court is credible and should be given weight. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that diligence in filing the Petition “in advance of the one-year bar date and within four months of PO’s infringement contentions in the Texas Litigation” should weigh in favor of institution. Pet. 89. As the Texas Litigation is scheduled to go to trial in August 2024, approximately six months before a final written decision would be entered, we determine that Factor 2 weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinarily skilled artisan”) as one having “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. R. Jacob Baker (“Baker Decl.”) ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further states that slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,462,942 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01094 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Fintiv favored discretionary denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence that claims 1–4, 8, and 11–12 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“approximately six months before a final written decision would be entered, we determine that Factor 2 weighs in favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section primary with a planar coil would modify Odendaal’s coil to add multiple taps to create multiple section and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 37. The Petition does not address how Odendaal’s planar could would be incorporated to provide this important functionality of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride,” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section primary with a planar coil would modify Odendaal’s coil to add multiple taps to create multiple section and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 37. The Petition does not address how Odendaal’s planar could would be incorporated to provide this important functionality of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,316,371 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Digital Doors, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00972 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 31, 36, and 41, exercising § 314(a) discretion under Fintiv because the merits were not compelling.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–5. As discussed above, factors 1 and 3 are neutral, factors 2 and 5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against discretionary denial. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence of record on factors 1–5 favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. Accordingly, following CommScope, where, as here, our analysis of the first five Fintiv factors favors denial of institution. we address the merits of the Petition to determine whether the merits are compelling.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Resp. 34–35. We agree with Patent Owner that Merenda’s “parsing” does not disclose extracting, i.e., filtering or separating, security sensitive information from source data to obtain extracted data. Id. at 42. Instead, Merenda discloses storing data entered in empty fields pre-designated as “private” separately from data entered in fields pre-designated “public.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 23, 24, 26, 31, Figs. 1–3. No extracting takes place because the customer has already separated the private data from the public data in filling out the web form and entering data in separate fields that were previously designated either private or public. See Easttom Decl. ¶¶ 43–49 (discussing Merenda). We agree with Dr. Easttom’s analogy to an airport security process: Merenda works a bit like standard versus pre-check security at the airport. Before the security lines form, the official is trained to recognize that boarding passes with the green “pre-check” icon may enter the pre-check security line, and that those with boarding passes missing that icon should go to the regular security line. This step is analogous to what Merenda describes as its “parsed” step, meaning parsing in advance what kinds of information/boarding passes will qualify for different treatment. As people (like individual items of information) arrive, depending on what’s on their boarding pass, they go directly to either the pre-check security line (like the private data set) or the standard security line (like the public data set). Id. ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Petitioner presents no compelling argument that Merenda’s disclosure of storing data entered in fields pre-designated as “private” separately from data entered in fields pre-designated “public” discloses or suggests the extracting step.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of data storage systems and data security as of November 13, 2000.” Pet. 6 (citing Zadok Decl. ¶¶ 114, 115). Petitioner adds that “[l]ess professional experience can be substituted by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner chooses not to state a position on this issue. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the art before us.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1006 ¶ 23 (emphasis added). It does not appear that Petitioner is relying on Merenda’s “sophisticated” notion of data parsing to teach or suggest the extracting limitation. See Pet. 31 (quoting from Merenda paragraph 23, describing only “simplistic” parsing). In any event, we agree with Patent Owner that “[t]his more sophisticated version of ‘parsing’ doesn’t remove anything, it combines data fields.” Prelim. Resp. 34; Easttom Decl. ¶ 55. Merenda’s “simplistic” version of parsing fares no better. Prelim. Resp. 34–35. We agree with Patent Owner that Merenda’s “parsing” does not disclose extracting, i.e., filtering or separating, security sensitive information from source data to obtain extracted data. Id. at 42. Instead, Merenda discloses storing data entered in empty fields pre-designated as “private” separately from data entered in fields pre-designated “public.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 23, 24, 26, 31, Figs. 1–3. No extracting takes place because the customer has already separated the private data from the public data in filling out the web form and entering data in separate fields that were previously designated either private or public. See Easttom Decl. ¶¶ 43–49 (discussing Merenda). We agree with Dr. Easttom’s analogy to an airport security process: Merenda works a bit like standard versus pre-check security at the airport. Before the security lines form, the official is trained to recognize that boarding passes with the green “pre-check” icon may enter the pre-check security line, and that those with boarding passes missing that icon should go to the regular security line. This step is analogous to what Merenda describes as its “parsed” step, meaning parsing in advance what kinds of information/boarding passes will qualify for different treatment. As people (like individual items of information) arrive, depending on what’s on their boarding pass, they go directly to either the pre-check security line (like the private data set) or the standard security line (like the public data set).” slip op. at 19
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,958,268 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01093 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 2, 4, and 18 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). “These factors relate to 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.” Id. In evaluating the Fintiv factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review,” recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 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 stated below, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner reports that it “believes that no special constructions are necessary to assess whether the challenged claims are unpatentable over the asserted prior art.” Pet. 5 (citing Baker Decl. ¶ 68). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position or discuss claim construction. Therefore, we determine there are no claim terms that need to be construed at this stage.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“patent would have possessed “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline,” and would have had “two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems,” with additional education supplementing “practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Baker Decl. ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. We regard Petitioner’s description as consistent with the challenged patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,201,500 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01092 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 23–31 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–5. As discussed above, factor 1 is neutral, factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution, and factor 4 weighs slightly against discretionary denial. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence of record on factors 1–5 favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. Accordingly, following CommScope, where, as here, our analysis of the first five Fintiv factors favors denial of institution, we address the merits of the Petition to determine whether the merits are compelling.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“the Fintiv factors. As discussed above, we have determined that factors 1–5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution. Moreover, we have further determined that the Petition does not show compelling evidence of unpatentability under factor 6. We therefore conclude that the evidence of record favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. V. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, Preliminary Sur-reply, and the accompanying evidence, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review challenging claims 23–31 of the ’500 patent. VI. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot reached
“device.” Instead, the output current in Okada is determined in steps 6–12 of the flowchart, where the receiver transmits and the transmitter receives power consumption information derived from a code stored on the device being charged. Prelim. Resp. 28–29; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 69–73. The transmitter adjusts the power to one of three levels, a one-time selection that remains for the duration of the charging. Prelim. Resp. 28–29. We, therefore, do not find compelling evidence that Okada meets this claim element. Nor are we convinced by Petitioner’s “modifications” to Okada. Pet. 58 (referring to annotated Fig. 3). In Petitioner’s modified Okada system, the receiver circuit would “periodically communicate information corresponding to an output voltage or current of the receiver rectifier circuit to cradle 4.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Petitioner points to the testimony of its expert, Dr. Baker. Id. (citing Baker Decl. ¶ 210). We do not find that there is compelling evidence that Okada’s “carrier wave” would have enabled cradle 4 to ‘regulate in a closed loop manner the output voltage or current of the receiver rectifier circuit during the charging or powering of the portable device.’” Id. (emphasis omitted). We find Dr. Baker’s testimony confusing and, ultimately, not compelling. Instead of setting forth his support for his opinion, he incorporates by reference over 100 pages of his prior testimony. See Baker Decl. ¶ 210 (incorporating prior analysis for limitations 23(a)- 23(h) in Sections IX.A.1(a)–1(h) and analysis and discussions in Sections VIII.A–E). Patent Owner cites several instances of this lack of particularity in the Petition, and we agree. See Prelim. Resp. 22–25. Dr. Baker’s testimony similarly lacks focus and deprives us of a fair opportunity to assess the basis for his testimony. Our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)9 provides the following guidance on presenting cases and warns against lack of focus: Although parties are given wide latitude in how they present their cases, the Board’s experience is that the presentation of an overwhelming number of issues tends to detract from the argument being presented, and can otherwise cause meritorious issues to be missed or discounted. Thus, parties should avoid submitting a repository of all the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record. Id. at 39 (emphasis added). Petitioner has failed to follow this guidance throughout its presentation. As a consequence, we find it difficult to discern compelling evidence in Petitioner’s argument for why Okada should be modified to provide closed-loop operation.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“required by the claim would require the transmitter to regulate. But the Okada drive circuit . . . as described is not designed for this type of regulation.” Prelim. Resp. 30. As Patent Owner explains, “Okada teaches simply choosing one of three power levels through the use of a multi-tapped primary side coil.” Id. Modifying Okada would require “additional circuitry and control mechanisms required for closed loop regulation.” Id. Petitioner fails to provide compelling evidence that a person of ordinary skill would have modified Okada’s open-loop circuitry and controls employing a multitap helical coil, described supra, for closed-loop operation such as that disclosed in Berghegger, which operates on entirely different principles. We are not convinced that Petitioner provides a sufficiently compelling motivation to import closed-loop operation into Okada’s open-loop system. The Supreme Court has warned against “slipping into use of hindsight.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421(quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at 36). In this regard, the Federal Circuit has said that “combinations that change the basic principles under which the [prior art] was designed to operate, . . . may fail to support a conclusion of obviousness.” Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG, 600 Fed. Appx. 755, 758 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Ratti, 46 CCPA 976, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (1959), In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984)) (internal quotation marks and cites omitted) (alterations in original). For the reasons given, we are not persuaded that Petitioner presents a compelling reason to modify Okada for closed-loop operation in the manner suggested by Dr. Baker.” slip op. at 33
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,201,500 - Duplo U.S.A. Corporation v. Mgi Digital Technology S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00936 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, and 12 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“G. Balancing the Fintiv Factors A holistic balancing of the Fintiv factors weighs in favor of discretionary denial. As discussed above, only factor 4 weighs somewhat against discretionary denial. The remaining factors either do not support institution (factors 1 and 6) or weigh in favor of denial of institution (factors 2, 3, and 5). Moreover, Petitioner has not submitted a Sotera-type stipulation or shown compelling evidence of unpatentability that would make discretionary denial inappropriate under the Guidance Memo. 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 32
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“As such, even if we were to determine that Petitioner’s Nagashima- based challenges met the lower threshold for instituting an inter partes review (a question we need not reach in our Fintiv analysis), these challenges, if unrebutted in trial, do not plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill is a factor to be considered when determining obviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and at least two years of practical experience with printer technology. Pet. 5. Petitioner further asserts that more relevant experience may compensate for less formal education and that more relevant formal education may compensate for less practical experience. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner does not propose its own definition but does assert that Petitioner has understated the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 9. For the purpose of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, because Patent Owner presents no countervailing definition and because we find Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art adequate and supported on this record. We also note that our analysis would not change if we were to apply a higher level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Nagashima discloses or suggests the claimed covering ink ordroplets of covering ink and, thus, Petitioner’s Nagashima-based grounds fail to present a compelling, meritorious, challenge. First, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’806 patent defines covering ink as synonymous with “viscous product” so that “covering ink” broadly covers any “viscous product” including printing ink. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:21–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 57–61). Rather, the ’806 patent states that “[i]n the present document, the terms of ‘covering ink’, ‘viscous product’ and ‘varnish’ are synonyms.” Ex. 1001, 3:21–22. We understand this sentence to mean that when ’806 patent uses the term “viscous product,” that the term is synonymous with “covering ink” within the ’806 patent, but is not intended to broadly mean that “covering ink” encompasses the entire universe of viscous products. We also determine that there are substantial issues with Petitioner’s argument that Nagashima discloses or suggests using covering ink in its device. Petitioner’s argument that Nagashima does not limit its device to any particular ink and identifies ink having different characteristics, including viscosity, does not plainly lead to a conclusion that Nagashima discloses use of covering ink. See Pet. 8. Nor does Petitioner’s argument that because some inkjet printers have been used to deposit covering ink, and those inkjet printers and Nagashima’s device both involve similar piezo-type ink ejection heads for ejecting different ink types and viscosities, plainly lead to a conclusion that a POSITA would have found it obvious to use Nagashima to apply a covering ink. See Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–66; see” slip op. at 24
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,783,806 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Digital Doors, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00969 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21–23, and 27, finding Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition lacked compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“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”). “These factors relate to 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.” Id. In evaluating the Fintiv factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review,” recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 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 stated below, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We do not see compelling evidence from Petitioner that the extracting/parsing data limitation is taught or suggested by Bossemeyer. As discussed supra, in Section II.C, the ’987 patent discloses extraction occurring as an initial step in which a filter removes or extracts security-sensitive data from a data object prior to storage. See Ex. 1001, 19:45–49, Fig. 1A. In contrast, Bossemeyer discloses a “partitioned” memory (see Fig. 3, reproduced supra in Section II.E.1), but does not disclose extracting, i.e., filtering or separating, security sensitive information from source data to obtain extracted data and remainder data. See Easttom Decl. ¶ 29 (“Bossemeyer is entirely silent as to where the information stored in the central server comes from, the form it takes before it gets to the central database server, or how the different pieces of information end up in the different partitioned areas of memory.”). Petitioner points to no disclosure or suggestion that the “proprietary” and “limited access” information in Bossemeyer’s database has been filtered or separated from the “public” information, so as to result in “extracted data” and “remainder data,” as recited in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“repeatedly refers to Bossemeyer’s “partitioned” database server and attempts to equate “partitioning” with “extraction.” See, e.g., Pet. 24 (“Bossemeyer partitions or separates (e.g., extracts), user data into subsets of extracted data, e.g., limited access information and/or proprietary information, and remainder data, e.g., public information.”) (emphases and color highlighting omitted). We do not find this argument compelling. We agree with Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Easttom, who testifies, “a partitioned memory does not Dr. Easttom explains, a partitioned memory “merely refers to memory with different areas reserved for different types of information.” Id. Petitioner argues that, to the extent Bossemeyer does not explicitly disclose “extracting data,” a person of ordinary skill would have understood that, when Bossemeyer’s central data base server “partitions” user information in terms of accessibility, Bossemeyer teaches “separating sensitive information from user data.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:17–20). We find the reference in Bossemeyer to “partitions” is not a compelling disclosure of extracting, e.g., filtering or removing, security sensitive data from a data object prior to storage. We agree, instead, with Dr. Easttom, that this disclosure in Bossemeyer is “merely referring to the act by the memory partitions of keeping different pieces of information separate from each other, not removing some pieces of data from a larger whole.” Easttom Decl. ¶ 32. He concludes that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood that the extracting/parsing process of the ’987 Patent is vastly different than the act of ‘partitioning’ either as used in Bossemeyer or as used in the art at the time.’” Id. ¶ 34.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,349,987 - Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 24, 2023 · IPR2023-00585 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–3 and 5–12 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and no compelling unpatentability challenge overcame them.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“When determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution in view of a parallel proceeding, we consider the following factors: 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 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). “These factors relate to 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.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Given the testimony regarding Wang’s use of relatively low- temperature “ultrasound welding” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 43, 48, 109; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 85– 86 (ultrasonic welding “involves the use of a high frequency of ultrasonic energy to produce oscillating shears to create solid-state bonds between two sheets clamped under pressure at elevated but relatively low temperatures”); Ex. 2005, 3), and in the absence of any articulation of the benefit of heat reduction in Wang’s process, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to combine Deng’s heat-dissipating notch with Wang’s secondary battery in the manner proposed by Petitioner. See also Prelim. Resp. 22 (arguing that the “use of resistance welding in Wang would cause significant damage to Wang’s current collector, rendering Wang’s lithium-ion battery inoperable”), 24–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 78). As Patent Owner also points out, Deng’s notch is not located in an electrode tab receiving groove to receive an electrode tab, nor does it mitigate a burr problem (Prelim. Resp. 16, Sur-Reply 5)), which calls into question Petitioner’s asserted motivation to combine Deng’s notch with Wang’s electrode tab receiving groove in the manner proposed (Pet. 30 (“In view of Deng’s stated benefits of its electrode notch, such as to reduce the accumulation of heat and the resulting deformation and/or warping of the electrode to which the tab is welded,” one of ordinary skill in the art “would on the current collector where the first (e.g., anode) electrode tab will be welded.” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 76))), because Deng’s notch lacks the location and function that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to make the combination. We also consider Patent Owner’s concerns about the suitability of Deng’s availability for combination with Wang sufficiently well-founded, based in part on Patent Owner’s argument and evidence indicating that Deng is directed to a flat metal plate type battery that would use a resistance welding process, instead of a lithium-ion wound battery that would use an ultrasonic welding process. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s rationale for the combination lacking. As discussed above, “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges are 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.” Fintiv Memo, 4. While Petitioner’s arguments and evidence provide an explanation for the proposed combination with respect to limitation 1(g), they do not plainly lead to a conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination of Wang and Deng to attain limitation 1(g) and, thus, are not sufficiently supported by the record for purposes of an obviousness challenge under this framework. Consequently, Petitioner does not present a compelling, meritorious challenge to claim 1 as obvious over Wang and Deng.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner also argues that Deng is not analogous art. Id. at 23–30 (citing In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed” and “(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.”)). As to the first prong of the analogous art test, Patent Owner argues that Deng is a flat metal plate type battery, whereas Wang and the ’352 patent are lithium-ion batteries. Id. at 23. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art “would not weld electrode tabs in lithium-ion batteries in such a manner” as the resistance welding used in Deng. Id. at 25. As to the second prong of the analogous art test, Patent Owner argues that Deng is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor of the ’352 patent was involved, because “Deng discloses, at best, heat mitigation techniques related to resistance welding,” which “would damage the current collector of a lithium-ion battery,” and “would not have been considered by the inventors when solving the problems of the ’352 Patent.” Id. at 27. As argued by Patent Owner, Deng’s benefit of reducing heat accumulation and warping from resistance welding “is not an issue for the lithium-ion battery of Wang or the ’352 patent,” which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to benefit from the low operating temperature and good welding performance of ultrasonic welding. Id. at 29–30. Next, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Wang’s current collector susceptible to damage and tearing. Id. at 30–32. Finally, Patent Owner argues that even if Wang” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,329,352
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.