• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00325 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution under Fintiv because factors 2, 3, 5, and 6 favored denial; factor 1 was neutral and factor 4 weighed slightly against denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “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 13

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “the compelling merits standard, not the “reasonable likelihood” standard of § 314(a). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not show that Redford 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. To the extent that Petitioner relies on Redford’s Figure 11H for disclosing this limitation, such reliance is unavailing. Pet. 27, 40. Redford’s Figure 1H is reproduced below.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Petitioner does not explain how Redford’s Authority Server 282 of Figure 2B or Redford’s computer system 250 of Figure 3A converts the command so that the command is received by Redford’s set-top or internetenabled television 303 of Figure 3A, or how it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Redford’s system to have done so. In short, we have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions that Redford’s VideoPlay is a command that is converted at computer system 250 and that the VideoPlay command is sent to and received by television 303, but do not find such contentions supported by the cited disclosure of Redford. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 159); id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 186), id. at 51–52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 227–228); Ex. 1005:40:56–41:2. Much of Petitioner’s contentions and Mr. Lett’s testimony rely on Redford’s disclosure of its settop API (Ex. 1005, 40:56–58), but neither Petitioner nor Mr. Lett provides sufficient evidence to show that Redford’s API converts the command at computer system 250 or at server authority 282 such that a converted command is received by television 303, as the claims require. Id. The addition of Bartfeld and/or Gonze does not remedy this deficiency. Petitioner relies on Bartfeld for teaching “creating an assigned unique identifier on a television for use by a telephone device of a user.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 139). Petitioner relies on Gonze for teaching that it was known that “display devices were enabled with the capability to receive information concerning any one of a plurality of media playing applications.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 166). Thus, Petitioner does not explain how Bartfeld or Gonze remedies the above-discussed deficiencies of Redford.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelOther
  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,086,934

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.