- Nuvei Technologies, Inc. v. Autoscribe CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00089 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Nuvei did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–27 would have been obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“providing” negative limitation of independent claim 1, and the similar negative limitations of independent claims 8, 15, 23, and 25. Accordingly, Nuvei has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertions that the subject matter of independent claims 1, 8, 15, 23, and 25 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Stringfellow and Kloster.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the art “would have had at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or comparable field of study, and (2) at least two years’ experience working with and programming networked computer systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 36). Nuvei also argues that “[a]dditional education might substitute for some experience, and vice versa.” Id. In the Preliminary Response, Autoscribe does not address the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Nuvei’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with both the ’621 patent and the asserted prior art, and it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“The supporting testimony from Nuvei’s declarant, Dr. Almeroth, on these issues fare no better. Dr. Almeroth provides no additional explanation beyond the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition to support Nuvei’s assertion that Kloster does not provide the payment data token to the payer during its token retrieval functions. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 100.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“argument that Kloster does not teach the “without providing” negative limitation required by each independent claim. Nuvei appears to contend that Kloster teaches this limitation in two different ways—namely, through either a “call back URL” or “API calls by the merchant.” Pet. 50–51 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 15, 23) (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 24). We address Nuvei’s contentions in turn.” slip op. at 21
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,620,621 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01114 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 2, 27–30, 32–36, 38, 40, 42–44, 46, 47, 52, 54, 57, and 59, exercising discretion because this was the fourth-ranked parallel petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“petition is warranted given the number of claims at issue. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (identifying situations where “two petitions . . . may be needed”). Patent Owner has asserted 166 claims in the co-pending district court litigation, and Petitioner challenges 91 unique claims in these petitions. See Ranking Notice 2; Ranking Response 2. Also, the vast majority of the challenged claims are asserted in litigation. See Ranking Response 2; Ex. 2004, 3. As a result, we agree that this is the type of “rare” situation where multiple parallel petitions are necessary. Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot justify a large number of petitions by claiming that it needed additional words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise. 10 A petitioner is not entitled to an unlimited number of petitions (see Trial Practice Guide 59–61); instead, we determine whether the circumstances justify additional petitions (see id. at 59–60). This approach conforms with the rationale behind imposing a word count limit on petitions. See id. at 39 (discussing the reasons for establishing word count limits and urging parties to present “concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.”). i.e., the analysis of claim 2, the summary of the ’754 patent and prior art, the articulation of the level of skill in the art and claim construction, and the other preliminary comments—and we are not persuaded that they are sufficiently concise to support Petitioner’s argument. Claim 2 is only fifteen lines long, and its technology is relatively simple, yet Petitioner’s analysis of this claim stretches for seventeen pages. See Pet. 24–41. Petitioner provides no general information about the technology and submits that no claims need to be construed (id. at 7), yet Petitioner provides a five-page summary of the ’754 patent and its prosecution history (see id. at 2–6). Also, Petitioner provides a twelve-page summary of Ahn and Chaudhri (see id. at 7–19), despite the fact that neither reference is particularly long. Indeed, as Patent Owner notes, Petitioner was able to remove nearly 1,000 words from these common sections in at least one of the petitions. See Ranking Response 3–4. Because Petitioner’s analysis in the common sections does not appear to be concise, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s use of approximately 8,350 words in those sections justifies the large number of petitions.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - PTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01143 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were unpatentable under any of its anticipation or obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“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) (2024).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“Verizon Wireless, Ericsson Inc., and Nokia of America Corporation (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–8 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,059 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’059 patent”). Innovative Sonic Limited (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12, “Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 13, “Prelim. Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 14, “Prelim. Sur-reply”), each of which is narrowly tailored to address Petitioner’s stipulation provided in response to Patent Owner’s arguments for discretionary denial under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (Order Authorizing Supplemental Briefing on Discretionary Denial) (precedential), and the resulting impact of that stipulation.1” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“the “[p]etition equates [3GPP-4.60-v860-Specification’s] variables ‘V(A)’ and ‘V(S)’ with the ’059 [p]atent specification’s ‘VT(A)’ and ‘VT(S)’, instead of mapping [3GPP-4.60-v860-Specification’s] variables to the claim language.” Prelim. Resp. 21-22 (citing Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 81)) (emphasis added). As noted above, anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior art reference. See Atlas Powder, 190 F.3d at 1346. This requires Petitioner to read or “map” each limitation of claim 1 to the corresponding feature found in the 3GPP-4.60- v860-Specification. Petitioner has not done so here.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“As an initial matter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit guides that, “[e]ven when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000). But here, we note the evidence relied upon to support Petitioner’s proposed motivation to modify the 3GPP-4.60-v860- Specification is found in paragraphs 98–100 of Dr. Hass’s declaration (Ex. 1002), which merely repeat the identical language from pages 33–35 of the Petition. We thus find this declaration evidence unpersuasive because it is conclusory, and it does not set forth a suggestion or motivation to modify the 3GPP-4.60-v860-Specification. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 98–100.” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,664,059 - AT&T Services Inc. / T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Innovative Sonic Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01144 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because AT&T failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–22 were obvious over either Nokia and the 3GPP-Standard or Ericsson and the 3GPP-Standard.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“§ 42.4(a), we may not institute an IPR unless the information presented in the Petition and any responses thereto shows “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). Taking into account Innovative Sonic’s Preliminary Response, AT&T’s Preliminary Reply, and Innovative Sonic’s Preliminary Sur-reply, we conclude that the information 1 We do not reach whether we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under Fintiv because, as we explain below, we deny the Petition based on the merits. See infra Sections II.B.5 and II.C.1. presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that AT&T would prevail in demonstrating at least one of claims 1–22 of the ’489 patent is unpatentable. We, therefore, deny AT&T’s Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Relying on the testimony of Dr. Hansen, AT&T argues the following: [a]s of the earliest claimed priority date, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’489 patent . . . would have had a [Bachelor of Science] in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three years of experience designing, developing, and/or testing telecommunication systems. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would also have familiarity with the wireless standards and well-known protocols for accessing wireless networks. More education may supplement practical experience or vice versa. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 368). In the Preliminary Response, Innovative Sonic does not address AT&T’s assessment of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt AT&T’s uncontested assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’489 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“issue fares no better. With one exception, Dr. Hansen, relies on the same disclosures of the Update for 3GPP TS 36.331 v.9.4.0 to support his testimony, which, as we explain above, does not account for the plain language of the disputed limitation. Compare Pet. 26–27, 43, with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–90. In addition, Dr. Hansen testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “the E-UTRAN configuring the UE with one or more SCells would necessarily include the configuring of at least one SCell by a source eNB to a UE.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 91 (emphasis added). But neither AT&T nor Dr. Hansen establish inherency in its obviousness analysis. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194– 95 (Fed Cir. 2014) (recognizing that “inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis,” but limiting the doctrine of inherency “only when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art elements” (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981)). Apart from the conclusory assertion above, Dr. Hansen does not identify sufficient evidentiary support demonstrating that the requirement identically recited in each of independent claims 1 and 12 of “configuring at least one SCell by a source eNB to a User Equipment (UE)” would have been the “natural result” flowing from the Update for 3GPP TS 36.331 v.9.4.0’s disclosure of the E-UTRAN configuring the UE with at least one SCell. PAR Pharm., 773 F.3d at 1195. Accordingly, we do not credit Dr. Hansen’s testimony that implicates the doctrine of inherency because it not supported by evidence of record.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Petition, AT&T contends that “the Board does not need to expressly construe any [claim] terms to resolve the arguments presented herein” because the asserted prior art “discloses all limitations under any plausible construction.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 (Declaration of Dr. Christopher Hansen) ¶ 456). In the Preliminary Response, Innovative Sonic “agrees with [AT&T] that no [claim] term needs to be construed.” Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Pet. 14). For purposes of this Decision, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,237,489 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01159 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–27 were unpatentable over the asserted PayPal-based obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Autoscribe’s argument that PayPal Express Checkout does not teach the “providing” steps of independent claim 1 and 25 and the “receiving” step of independent claim 15 for two reasons. First, as we explain in our claim construction analysis above, we decline to adopt M&A Ventures’s proposed construction of the “providing” and “receiving” steps as being limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” Instead, we construe the “providing” and “receiving” steps in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings, which includes giving the negative limitation recited therein (i.e., not providing the data token to the payer) patentable weight, without limiting the occurrence of this negative limitation during execution of the token retrieval function. See supra Section II.A.1. With this construction in mind, step 4 of the PayPal Express Checkout flow run in the sandbox environment plainly sends the Payer ID, which M&A Ventures maps to the claimed “data token,” to the buyer. Ex. 1006, 17, 25–26; see also Pet. 64 (arguing PayPal’s Payer ID teaches the “non-sensitive electronic data token” (emphasis omitted)), 67 (arguing the same). Because PayPal sends the Payer ID to the buyer during the PayPal Express Checkout flow, PayPal provides the data token to the payer and, therefore, violates the negative limitation required by the “providing” and “receiving” steps.” slip op. at 31
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We must look to all the intrinsic evidence of record, including the claim language itself, the specification of the ’621 patent, and its prosecution history, to determine whether the “providing” steps of independent claims 1, 8, and 25, and the “receiving” step of independent claims 15 and 23, should be limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” See, e.g., DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Autoscribe’s argument that PayPal Express Checkout does not teach the “providing” steps of independent claim 1 and 25 and the “receiving” step of independent claim 15 for two reasons. First, as we explain in our claim construction analysis above, we decline to adopt M&A Ventures’s proposed construction of the “providing” and “receiving” steps as being limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” Instead, we construe the “providing” and “receiving” steps in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings, which includes giving the negative limitation recited therein (i.e., not providing the data token to the payer) patentable weight, without limiting the occurrence of this negative limitation during execution of the token retrieval function. See supra Section II.A.1. With this construction in mind, step 4 of the PayPal Express Checkout flow run in the sandbox environment plainly sends the Payer ID, which M&A Ventures maps to the claimed “data token,” to the buyer. Ex. 1006, 17, 25–26; see also Pet. 64 (arguing PayPal’s Payer ID teaches the “non-sensitive electronic data token” (emphasis omitted)), 67 (arguing the same). Because PayPal sends the Payer ID to the buyer during the PayPal Express Checkout flow, PayPal provides the data token to the payer and, therefore, violates the negative limitation required by the “providing” and “receiving” steps.” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,620,621 - PTAB · Jan 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01145 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 and 7–11 were unpatentable on any of four proposed grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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) (2024).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“current record that enables us to determine the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Relying upon the testimony of its declarant Dr. Christopher Hansen, Petitioner argues the following: As of the earliest claimed priority date, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’559 Patent (“POSITA”) would have had a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three years of experience designing, developing, and/or testing telecommunication systems. A” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In addition to the above information, it would be beneficial for the macro eNB to send a measurement gap configuration (as dis-cussed in 3GPP TS 36.331 V1.1.2.0) allocated for the UE to the Small cell eNB so that the Small cell eNB could take measure-ment gaps into consideration when scheduling resources to the UE. For example, the small cell eNB could avoid scheduling the UE during measurement gaps because the UE cannot transmit or receive any signal to/from the Small cell during the measurement gaps. Ex. 1001, 6:41–49 (emphasis added). We particularly note the literal written description support (in italics) in the ’559 Patent that mirrors the claim [1e] language: “so that the Small cell eNB could take measurement gaps into consideration when scheduling resources to the UE.” Id. at 6:45–46 (emphasis added). Moreover, as noted above, Figure 5 of the ’559 Patent depicts flow chart 500. Prelim. Resp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:3). And step 525 of Figure 5 affirmatively describes: “The second eNB receives the measurement gap configuration from the first eNB, and takes the measurement gap configuration into consideration when scheduling resources to the UE.” Id. at Fig. 5, step 525 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“cites to Advanced Display Systems Inc. v. Kent State University (212 F.3d 1272, 1281–1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000)), which sets forth the doctrine of incorporation by reference that provides a mechanism to include as a matter of law in one document the disclosure of another document. As explained by the court in Advanced Display Systems, the requirements for an effective incorporation by reference are as follows: To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it in-corporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the 10 We note Exhibit 1014 is the Declaration of Craig Bishop, a second declaration relied upon by Petitioner, that is generally directed to the nature, purpose, dates, and public accessibility of the 3GPP TS.331 Exhibits 1008, 1009, and 1015. See e.g., Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 65–67. This is in addition to Exhibit 1003, which is the Declaration of Dr. Hansen, for Petitioner. We have considered both declarations, to the extent relied upon by Petitioner. USPQ 144, 146 (CCPA 1973) (providing that incorporation by reference requires a statement “clearly identifying the subject matter which is incorporated and where it is to be found”); In re Saunders, . . . 444 F.2d 599, 602-03, 170 USPQ 213, 216-17 (CCPA 1971) (reasoning that a rejection for anticipation is ap-propriate only if one reference “expressly incorporates a particu-lar part” of another reference); National Latex Prods. Co. v. Sun Rubber Co., 274 F.2d 224, 230, 123 USPQ 279, 283 (6th Cir. 1959) (requiring a specific reference to material in an earlier ap-plication in order [to] have that material considered part of a later application). Advanced Display Systems, 212 F.3d at 1281–1282 (emphasis added). Here, we find Petitioner has not persuasively shown how Centonza expressly incorporates a particular part of the TS 36.331 reference by: (1) identifying with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates, and (2) clearly indicating where that material is found in the TS 36.331 document. Pet. 33; Exhibits 1008, 1009.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,560,559 - AT&T Services Inc. / T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Innovative Sonic Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00991 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground for claims 1–11.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner responds that “a person with the 3-year experience proposed by Petitioner would not have the intimate knowledge of the existing standardized cellular system” required to understand “how a proposed change would impact the rest of the system.” Prelim. Resp. 7. But Patent Owner also states that engineers participating in the development of the relevant cellular specifications “would not be expected to be familiar with all relevant aspects of the specifications” given their length and complexity. Id. at 7–8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above, because we are satisfied that it generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’883 patent and the asserted prior art. To the extent Patent Owner disagrees (see Prelim. Resp. 6–8), it fails to sufficiently explain its contrary position by, for example, providing its own proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “the Board does not need to expressly construe any terms” in this proceeding because “the prior art in this Petition discloses all limitations under any plausible construction.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner similarly states that “all terms are entitled to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 21. We agree with the parties that it is not necessary to construe any claim terms or phrases in this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe only those terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (cleaned up).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(step 406) discloses the claimed “second request” (Pet. 44–45),9 but Petitioner fails to show that this message discloses a request. See Prelim. Resp. 46–48. Han explains that the dual connection setup response in step 406 is a “dual connection setup request acknowledge (ACK)” message sent in response to “dual connection setup request” received in step 404. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 40–42; accord Pet. 42–44. An acknowledgement is not a request, and Petitioner fails to sufficiently support its contention to the contrary (see Pet. 44–45). According to Petitioner, the acknowledgement message is “a request to change a data path” because the data path is “change[d] . . . based on this message” (id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 42–47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 202)); however, this is faulty reasoning. At most, Petitioner’s argument shows that the acknowledgement is a message “to change a data 9 We note that this is the same message relied upon by Petitioner to teach the claimed “accept message” recited earlier in claim 1. Compare Pet. 44– 45, with id. at 43–44. We need not (and do not) decide whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown that this message discloses two separate claim elements. path,” not that it is a request to do so. In other words, even if Han’s acknowledgement message (in step 406) is a condition precedent to changing the data path, this does not make the message a “request.” Although Dr. Mahon agrees with Petitioner, his analysis mirrors Petitioner’s arguments and suffers from the same deficiencies. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 202– 203; see also Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An expert’s conclusory testimony, unsupported by the documentary evidence, cannot supplant the requirement of anticipatory disclosure in the prior art reference itself.”).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,736,883 - Vizio, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00722 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because it could not determine with reasonable certainty the scope of “a different user interface device” to assess the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“an analysis to assess “whether the prior art discloses rendering something other than the second navigation bar” if a second user interface cannot contain that second navigation bar. Prelim. Reply 3–4. But our goal would not be to determine whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering something other than the second navigation bar” (Prelim. Reply 3), but rather whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering a different user interface device” (Ex. 1001, 55:26–29). In Samsung, the Federal Circuit notes that “the proper course for the Board to follow, if it cannot ascertain the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty for the purposes of assessing patentability, is to decline to institute the IPR or, if the indefiniteness issue affects only certain claims, to conclude that it could not reach a decision on keeping with this general direction from our reviewing court, and because no exception curing the impossibility of reaching a determination regarding unpatentability appears in this case, we do not institute an inter partes review. Given our conclusion that we cannot determine the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device” with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability, we decline to institute inter partes review on the grounds presented.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“After considering the determinations in the District Court Order, we agree with the district court that we cannot ascertain with reasonable certainty the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device.” See Ex. 2001, 25 (the district court explaining that “‘user interface device’ in the claim and in view of the intrinsic evidence, as emphasized by counsel’s 3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated . reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”). As the district court found, the ’168 patent specification uses the term “user interface device” inconsistently, for example, describing “four different user interface devices” in a navigation bar including the “movies user interface device 2204” in Figure 22A. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1001, 45:19–20, 45:27–29). Additionally, the specification appears to describe user interface devices with reference to the rows in Figure 22B, and other parts of the specification also describe selectable interface elements as “user interface device[s].” Ex. 1001, 45:33–37 (cited at Ex. 2001, 23–24), 41:31– 45, 46:67–47:2, 47:18–21, 48:18–20. Still further, the specification appears to describe a menu as a type of user interface device. Id. at 49:3–5 (cited at Ex. 2001, 24), 51:17–19 (same). In addition to these citations from the District Court Order, we note that the term “user interface device” is used when describing a user selecting a specific year from a display of years provided on a user interface: “If user selection 1460 is selected by the user using a user interface device, a new user interface presentation is provided.” Id. at 40:39–46 (emphasis added). On the record before us, we agree with the district court that, based on the ambiguity in the specification, “it is indiscernible what subset of the user interface, if any, is the user interface device.” Ex. 2001, 24. Therefore, we conclude that we cannot determine the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device” with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot reached
“an analysis to assess “whether the prior art discloses rendering something other than the second navigation bar” if a second user interface cannot contain that second navigation bar. Prelim. Reply 3–4. But our goal would not be to determine whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering something other than the second navigation bar” (Prelim. Reply 3), but rather whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering a different user interface device” (Ex. 1001, 55:26–29). In Samsung, the Federal Circuit notes that “the proper course for the Board to follow, if it cannot ascertain the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty for the purposes of assessing patentability, is to decline to institute the IPR or, if the indefiniteness issue affects only certain claims, to conclude that it could not reach a decision on keeping with this general direction from our reviewing court, and because no exception curing the impossibility of reaching a determination regarding unpatentability appears in this case, we do not institute an inter partes review. Given our conclusion that we cannot determine the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device” with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability, we decline to institute inter partes review on the grounds presented.” slip op. at 16
Claim constructioncites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,232,168 - Aylo Freesites Ltd v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00941 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 under § 314(a), finding a second review would impose unnecessary burden without sufficient efficiency or fairness justification.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to explain why the Leaning grounds in IPR2024-00940 are not sufficient for challenging claims 1–20 of the ’234 patent. Indeed, “both petitions contain strong invalidating prior art” by Petitioner’s own reckoning (Pet. Ranking 2), and Petitioner characterizes Leaning as “undoubtably very strong invalidating prior art” (id. at 4). We further note that both petitions challenge all 20 claims of the ’234 patent, so the scope of the challenges is exactly the same in both cases. As a result, we are not persuaded that the differences between the petitions militate in favor of instituting both proceedings.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,991,234 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00922 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were obvious over Larson and Cai.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the reasons given, we determine Petitioner has not has not shown that the asserted prior art teaches or suggests limitation [1.7]. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Larson and Cai. a) Conclusion—Claim 1 For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“comprise the background knowledge art, with very little substantive explanation. In our view, this string-citation, without more substantive explanation, does not satisfy Petitioner’s obligation to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Larson based on the background knowledge in the art to account for limitation 1.7.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner “agrees to use Petitioner’s definition” for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’823 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states “each claim term in the Challenged Claims” should “be given its plain and ordinary meaning,” and “that no specific construction of any claim term is required.” Pet. 17–18. Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that, for this proceeding and the grounds presented by Petitioner, no claim term requires construction.” Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this Decision, no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,446,823
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.