• ROKU, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2025 · IPR2024-01054 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution

  Institution denied for claims 1–15 because Petitioner did not show Seet was prior art, defeating the reasonable-likelihood showing for every asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 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.” For the reasons given below, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any one of claims 1–15 of the ’768 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’768 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner fails to show that the full scope of claim 9 of Seet is described in the Seet provisional. Seet expressly defines the claim term “media,” stating that, as it is “used herein,” “media” includes audio, video, software, and pictures. Ex. 1006 ¶ 50 (“Media content may include one . . . of audio . . ., video . . ., software . . ., and pictures”). Such a statement provides a clear definition of the term “media” that includes video, software, and pictures, in addition to audio. In addition to the express definition, Seet elsewhere indicates that its media includes video and other non-audio signals and databases. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26 (“if the media stream 102 is a video broadcast, each media item may comprise a television show or segment, an advertisement, or any other type of video”), 42–46 (creating databases of “videos,” “faces,” and “files”), 49 (“any signal that contains repeating content over any broadcast medium can benefit from the procedure described herein.”). Accordingly, the use of media in claim 9 for its claimed “media content database” and “media stream[s]” also includes both audio and non-audio media.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Seet is prior art. Seet is not entitled to the benefit of its provisional filing date unless a claim in Seet has written description support in the Seet provisional. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381–82. As the “‘hallmark’ of written description, . . . the disclosure must be considered as a whole, as the person of ordinary skill in the art would read it to determine if it reasonably conveys possession” of the claimed invention. Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., 111 F.4th 1358, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citation and emphasis omitted).” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art [“POSITA”] at the critical time would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree with at least two years of relevant industry experience, including in digital media content delivery.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner argues that the level of ordinary skill should include persons lacking a formal degree but possessing considerable industry experience designing and implementing automated content recognition systems, and that such systems are the relevant industry experience. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, modified by the more inclusive standards of Patent Owner, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’768 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,510,768
• ROKU, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2025 · IPR2024-01057 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Roku did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–15 unpatentable; Seet was not shown to be prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Without the benefit of its provisional filing date, Seet, filed on February 17, 2005, is not prior art to the ’848 patent, having an uncontested benefit to the May 27, 2004 filing date of its provisional. Because each of Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its unpatentability assertions. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we conclude Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of claims 1–15. We determine that the record does not support institution. Accordingly, no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner fails to show that the full scope of claim 9 of Seet is described in the Seet provisional. Seet expressly defines the claim term “media,” stating that, as it is “used herein,” “media” includes audio, video, software, and pictures. Ex. 1006 ¶ 50 (“Media content may include one . . . of audio . . ., video . . ., software . . ., and pictures”). Such a statement provides a clear definition of the term “media” that includes video, software, and pictures, in addition to audio. In addition to the express definition, Seet elsewhere indicates that its media includes video and other non-audio signals and databases. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26 (“if the media stream 102 is a video broadcast, each media item may comprise a television show or segment, an advertisement, or any other type of video”), 42–46 (creating databases of “videos,” “faces,” and “files”), 49 (“any signal that contains repeating content over any broadcast medium can benefit from the procedure described herein.”). Accordingly, the use of media in claim 9 for its claimed “media content database” and “media stream[s]” also includes both audio and non-audio media. The disclosure of the Seet provisional, however, is more limited and defines the term media exclusively as audio. Ex. 1019, 4 (“Media will be defined as any streaming audio source in any form, be it radio, television, cable, satellite, internet stream, or the like.”). This definition does not include the full scope of “media” as that term is used in claim 9 of Seet because it does not include video, software, and pictures.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “at the critical time would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree with at least two years of relevant industry experience, including in digital media content delivery.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner argues that the level of ordinary skill should include persons lacking a formal degree but possessing considerable industry experience designing and implementing automated content recognition systems, and that such systems are the relevant industry experience. Prelim. Resp. 6–8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, modified by the more inclusive standards of Patent Owner, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’848 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Here, neither party sets forth any explicit claim construction. Pet. 14; Prelim. Resp. Although Patent Owner analyzes the term “media monitoring device” in its arguments (Preliminary Response 37–43), our ultimate determination on institution does not turn on that construction. We determine that no need exists to determine a particular construction for purposes of this institution decision, and instead construe the claims pursuant to § 42.100(b).” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,719,848
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00912 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Micron did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 7 was obvious over Seo and Choi or Nam and Choi.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2023). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “(“POSITA”) would have had “a master’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline” with “4–5 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, designing, or developing) NAND flash memory devices (including issues relating to the operation, e.g., reading of said devices), or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience (e.g., an advanced degree may replace some of the professional experience).” Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–39). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner neither responds to Petitioner’s proposed definition, nor 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 effective March 16, 2013. Because the ’342 patent has an effective filing date after March 16, 2013 (Ex. 1001, codes (22), (63)), we refer to the AIA version of Sections 102 and 103. 2 Seo, US 2021/0027848 A1, published Jan. 28, 2021 (Ex. 1005). 3 Bongsik Choi et al., Comprehensive evaluation of early retention (fast charge loss within a few seconds) characteristics in tube-type 3-D NAND Flash Memory, SYMPOSIUM ON VLSI TECHNOLOGY DIGEST OF TECHNICAL PAPERS, 78–79 (2016) (Ex. 1007). 4 Nam, US 2015/0003169 A1, published Jan. 1, 2015 (Ex. 1006). undisputed proposed definition appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’342 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “techniques for removing fast charges during a read-verification operation.” Prelim. Resp. 28. In order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR Pharma, Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Petitioner, therefore, must show that fast charges of the target memory cell necessarily are removed during the first time period of Seo’s read-verification operation. On this record, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Liu sufficiently demonstrates that Seo’s read-verification operation would necessarily remove fast charges of the target memory cell during the first time period.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,600,342
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01025 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the ’308 PGPub was not prior art; Petitioner therefore did not show claims 1–20 were anticipated.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 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.” For the reasons given below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of claims 1–20 of the ’830 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art [“POSITA”] at the critical time “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience related to electronic consumer product design [and the] POSITA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Patent Owner states that its analysis has been made under this proposed definition and “would not change if minor variations were made to it.” Prelim. Resp. 4–5. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner. As Petitioner admits, each non- provisional parent application in the chain describes two types of vibration modules: a “linear” and a “linear-resonant” vibration module. Pet. 10–14. Each non-provisional ancestor application, including the ’249 application that matured into the ’830 patent, has “substantively identical specification[s].” Id. at 15. Each application describes multiple embodiments of the linear-resonant vibration module, some of which are not exclusively linear. SeeEx. 1033 ¶¶ 39–48; Ex. 1001, 9:20–10:65. For example, Patent Owner points to the arcuate motion (shown by the curved arrows labeled “motion of magnet”) in Figure 15, in which a “spring-like member 1502 is clamped at one end . . . and induced to vibrate.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 45; Ex. 1001, 10:26–34. Additionally, the embodiment of Figure 12 provides for oscillation “both in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the chamber as well as linearly oscillating the direction of the chamber.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 41 (emphasis added); Ex. 1001, 9:46–49. Thus, the ’607 application has clear written description for vibration modules that are not limited to solely “linear” vibration. We further agree that the term “oscillate” in the claims possesses written description in the non-provisional ancestor specifications. The above-described embodiments having more complex oscillation, such as linear plus rotational oscillation or linear-arcuate oscillation, provide the requisite support. As for the change in the language of the claims from prior applications, the above-described embodiments might reasonably be covered by the ’830 patent claims’ recitation of “moveable component to oscillate,” but perhaps might not be considered to be covered by the prior application claims’ recitation of “moveable component in each of two opposite directions.” Regardless, the description in the above-described embodiments provides sufficient support for the ’830 patent claims, and it is not affected or negated by the scope of the claims in those prior applications. Thus, we do not agree with Petitioner’s argument that the alterations in the claim language indicate that the claim scope of the ’830 patent is not described in the earlier non-provisional applications such that any claim of the ’830 patent cannot obtain the benefit of the earlier filing date of those applications.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “b) Determination For the above-described reasons, Patent Owner has sufficiently shown that the common disclosures of the parent and grandparent nonprovisional applications lack written description for the “vibration module” in the claims of the ’830 patent. Consequently, we determine that the record shows that the ’308 PGPub is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1). For that reason, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that any of the claims of the ’830 patent are anticipated by the ’308 PGPub.” slip op. at 17

  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,941,830
• Bio Imaging SAS D/B/A Vilber v. Spectral Instruments Imaging, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 19, 2023 · IPR2023-00449 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, principally because Olympus did not disclose the claimed support structure mounting both the assembly and camera.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “As we determined, the “support structure” requires that it is suitable to support the claimed “excitation light source assembly” and camera. See Section IV.B above. Petitioner points to structure of Figure 1 of Olympus (namely, base 6, shaft 7, bearing 8, C-ring 8b, and associated hardware) that is suitable to support the light source assembly but not the camera. Petitioner argues that “photodetector/CCD camera 24” is discussed in Olympus. See Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 50, 52, 53). But Petitioner does not show the camera is supported by the same structure in Figure 1 that supports the light source assembly. For Figure 22’s embodiment, Petitioner apparently contends the fluorescence detecting unit 28 is the claimed camera. See Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 200–210, Fig. 22 (annotated at Pet. 37); Ex. 1004 ¶ 65). Specifically, Petitioner argues “the embodiment of FIG. 22 (which uses the same reference numerals) light source holding member 9 is fixed and is mounted to a cylindrical fixed shaft 7 and associated hardware to position it with respect to the camera and to maintain them above sample table 1.” Id. at 36 (emphasis added). But Figure 22 and the associated description do not describe a “camera.” See also Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–30) (arguing Figure 22’s embodiment does not include a camera). Petitioner does not show that the fluorescent detector is the equivalent of a camera or that, if it is a “camera,” that it is supported by the light source holding member. This missing proof is not met by the Petitioner’s unsupported argument. The Talghader Declaration does not include testimony that the “support structure” mounts the claimed camera, instead pointing out that “[l]ens 5, lens 23, and photodetector/CCD camera 24 are on optical axis 5a.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 64–66). The Talghader Declaration specifically directed to limitation 1.a and the “support structure” term lacks any discussion or analysis of the “support structure” term. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 86– 87). Olympus does describe, in Figure 6, a fluorescence detection unit 28. Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 71–72, Fig. 6. However, because both Figure 6 and Figure 1 are described as illustrating the same embodiment, the camera in that embodiment is specifically portrayed in Figure 1, and Figure 6 does not indicate that it is mounted to the support structure. Id. ¶ 216 (page 29) (describing both Figures 1 and 6 as “according to a 1 embodiment”).” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The ’516 patent describes the support structure by saying that the “excitation light source assembly” is provided with a “suitable support structure 32.” Ex. 1001, 4:24–26. In addition, Figures 2 and 3 are referenced specifically. Id. Later in the Specification it is explained that The support structure 32 is configured to receive camera 36, control system 40, as well as various other components and systems required for operation of the imaging system 12. However, because such various other components and systems that may be required or desired for the operation of the imaging system 12 are not required to understand or practice the present invention, such additional components and systems will not be described in further detail herein. Id. at 6:25–32. We draw two conclusions from the Specification. First, no specific support structure is necessary. Second, the “support structure” is “not required to understand or practice the present invention.” With the preceding in mind, we determine that a “support structure” means a structure that is suitable to support the claimed “excitation light source assembly” and camera.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “C. Legal Standard for Anticipation In order for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory reference, it “must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We must analyze prior art references as a skilled artisan would. See Scripps Clinic & Res. Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (to anticipate, “[t]here must be no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention”). As the Federal Circuit has held: This modest flexibility in the rule that “anticipation” requires that every element of the claims appear in a single reference accommodates situations where the common knowledge of technologists is not recorded in the reference; that is, where technological facts are known to those in the field of the invention, albeit not known to judges. It is not, however, a substitute for determination of patentability in terms of § 103. Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268–69 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Further, “[a] claim limitation is inherent . . . if it is necessarily present in the prior art, not merely probably or possibly present.” Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless, 344 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2003).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, in assessing the prior art, the Board must consider whether a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1381. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found, in quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–19 (2007), “because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known,” “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017). slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,901,516
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00320 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 6–7, 16–17, or 27–28 were unpatentable; disclaimed claims were excluded.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For purposes of institution, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner disagrees, arguing that Barsoum describes determining optimized constellations for each operating SNR. Prelim. Resp. 74 (citing Ex. 1027, 4:62–5:11, 7:26–29, 8:47–56). Patent Owner further argues that the teachings related to optimizing a constellation for capacity at a first SNR also teach that other constellations optimized for a different SNR will not provide the same benefits at the first SNR. Id. We agree. Patent Owner correctly points to the specific examples of Figures 11b, 13b, 15b, and 17b as each showing a plurality of constellations, each optimized for a particular SNR that provide a greater parallel decoding capacity at that specific SNR than the other symbol constellations in the plurality. Id. at 75. More specifically, Figure 13b shows five constellations (i.e. a plurality), each optimized for a particular identified SNR that will perform better at that particular SNR than the other constellations which have not been optimized at that particular SNR. Id. at 76–77. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that claims 6, 16, and 27 lack written description support in Barsoum. Petitioner does not assert that claims 7, 17, and 28 lack written description support in Barsoum for any reason separate than provided by its assertions against parent claims 6, 16, and 27. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown a lack of written description in claims 7, 17, and 28.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “unequally spaced symbol constellations to a second group of unequally space[d] symbol constellations when the two groups are operated at the same SNR.” Pet. 15 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner argues that Barsoum “only describes determining a relative relationship between a geometrically shaped (i.e., unequally spaced) constellation and a constellation optimized for dmin.” Id. (citing Ex. 1027, 6:14–20, 2:56–63; Ex. 1003 ¶ 86). Petitioner points to a statement in Barsoum as “specifying that not all geometrically shaped constellations have a greater capacity than that of a constellation maximized for dmin.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1027, 6:13–22). Petitioner asserts that Barsoum’s non-uniform constellations are capable of providing such greater parallel decoding capacity only after having been optimized for that purpose. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1027, 6:13–22, Ex. 1003 ¶ 92). Patent Owner disagrees, arguing that Barsoum describes determining optimized constellations for each operating SNR. Prelim. Resp. 74 (citing Ex. 1027, 4:62–5:11, 7:26–29, 8:47–56). Patent Owner further argues that the teachings related to optimizing a constellation for capacity at a first SNR also teach that other constellations optimized for a different SNR will not provide the same benefits at the first SNR. Id. We agree. Patent Owner correctly points to the specific examples of Figures 11b, 13b, 15b, and 17b as each showing a plurality of constellations, each optimized for a particular SNR that provide a greater parallel decoding capacity at that specific SNR than the other symbol constellations in the plurality. Id. at 75. More specifically, Figure 13b shows five constellations (i.e. a plurality), each optimized for a particular identified SNR that will perform better at that particular SNR than the other constellations which have not been optimized at that particular SNR. Id. at 76–77.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “16–17, and 27–28 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327. Pet. 26. Each of the Petition’s grounds relies entirely on Barsoum to teach or suggest each limitation of independent claims 1, 11, and 21 upon which the challenged claims depend. Pet. 39–71, 96–98, 101–102. Apart from the written description support arguments above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s obviousness analysis of the challenged claims. See Prelim. Resp. As we have determined that Barsoum is not prior art to claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 27, and 28, the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that those claims are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327.” slip op. at 9

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,019,509
• Netflix, Inc. v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00081 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Netflix had not shown a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 37, or 38 unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). 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.” For the reasons explained below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’451 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not see a substantial difference between the parties’ proposals. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). However, our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “we consider whether that construction was intended to encompass varying durations during the creating step or the displaying step. In its opinion, the Microsoft court observed that the defendants in that case argued that “before created,” and that “the ‘duration information’ is a parameter that the user can then interact with in order to vary the display of each resource.” Ex. 1014, 22. Patent Owner, the court continued, argued that “all that is required is for the user to maintain control over the actual presentation of the resource during the ‘displaying’ step, and that no duration information need be provided during the ‘creating a show structure of nodes’ step.” Id. at 22–23. The Microsoft court “agree[d] with [Patent Owner] that the user should be able to vary the duration of the content during show structure playback. This is the ‘interactive’ component of the claim.” Id. at 23; see also Prelim. Resp. 29 (arguing that this reasoning supports Patent Owner’s position that “the claim language expressly requires that the end user be able to ‘vary said duration’ for how long resource content currently ‘is being displayed’ to the user in ‘accordance with said show structure’ to which the resource belongs”). Here, the Microsoft court expressly states that the duration is varied during show structure playback, which is a clear reference to claim 1’s step of “displaying a content corresponding to each of said resources automatically in accordance with said show structure.” The Microsoft court “also finds that some duration information must be provided when the show structure of nodes is created,” that “‘parameter’ is a helpful concept for construction,” and that “the ‘duration information’ may be understood to be synonymous with a ‘parameter,’ as that timing information is the variable that will specify how long a particular content will be displayed.” Ex. 1014, 23. Thus, the Microsoft court construed claim 1 to require providing a variable duration parameter in the creating” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther

    “As noted above, the Microsoft court construed “interactively variable duration information” to mean “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1014, 22. The construction itself suggests that the duration information is varied during display, because it is in the context of resources being displayed sequentially and “the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” As to Escobar, Petitioner contends that “[w]hen playing decision lists/timelines in the authoring tool using Button 174 (invoking subroutine E), the user is the viewer of the content.” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:40–45). Thus, Petitioner appears to contend that, during the process of creating a show structure, the creator is a viewer if the creator can view the edited content corresponding to a node as the show structure is being created. Here, Petitioner would satisfy the “viewer” aspect of the Microsoft court’s construction by pointing to a creator viewing a piece of the show structure during the creating step, although Escobar does not teach that the creator can vary the duration of content while viewing it or that durations can be varied while a show structure (as opposed to a node being created) is being displayed in the displaying step, as discussed in more detail below.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,155,451
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01125 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over Henley or Shoham and Richardson.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). While the elements must be arranged in the same way as is recited in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Identity of terminology between the anticipatory prior art reference and the claim is not required. Prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Certain terms recited in the challenged claims were construed during prior litigation of the ’451 patent, i.e., the parent of the challenged ’932 patent. Ex. 1011 (claim construction order in cases involving Microsoft and Apple); Ex. 2009, 5 (clarification of certain claim constructions on summary judgment). Patent Owner advocates that we adopt such prior constructions in this proceeding, and Petitioner “does not dispute” such constructions. Pet. 10–13; Prelim. Resp. 6–8. We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1011, 16–17; Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 7. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in challenged independent claims 1 and 22, as well as in challenged dependent claim 4, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1011, 2–13; Pet. 11–12; Prelim. Resp. 7. Third, we construe “interactively variable duration information,” which is recited in challenged independent claim 1, as well as challenged dependent claims 2 and 26, as “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1011, 22–23; Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 7.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject and two or more years of experience working with computer networks and the accessing and presentation of networked resources to users in the 1996 timeframe.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 51). Petitioner adds that “[t]his description is approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience and vice-versa.” Id. Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately 3-5 years of professional experience with these topics.” Prelim. Resp. 6. In addition, Patent Owner say that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 28). Both parties support their proposals with testimony by their respective experts. See Ex. 1012 ¶ 51; Ex. 2005 ¶ 28. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “distinction. See Ex. 2005 ¶ 30 (“Henley discloses a ‘video optimized stream server system 10,’ also referred to as ‘media streamer,’ for use by broadcasters to deliver content to end users, or viewers.”). In particular, Dr. Almeroth observes that, in Figure 1 of Henley, reproduced above, system controller 64 is illustrated graphically as connected to multiple user controls 65, but is shown connected only to a single display 66. Id. ¶ 31. This structure, in combination with Henley’s description of the drawing, leads Dr. Almeroth to conclude that user control 65 “corresponds to a ‘set top box[]’” for an end user, and that system controller 64 corresponds to a separate “‘user interface’ for the operator.” Id. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth points to Henley’s description of system controller 64 as “respond[ing] to inputs from user control set top boxes 65 to cause commands to be generated that enable media streamer 10 to access a requested video presentation.” Id.; Ex. 1013, 8:30–32 (emphasis added). Dr. Almeroth also notes Henley’s explanation that “[s]ystem controller 64 is further provided with a user interface and display facility 66 which enables a user to input commands, such as by hard or soft buttons, and other data to enable an identification of video presentations, the scheduling of video presentations, and control over the playing of a video presentation.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 31; Ex. 1013, 8:33–38. These disclosures by Henley support Dr. Almeroth’s conclusion that “[t]his ‘user interface and display facility 66’ is for an operator—not an end user.” See Ex. 2005 ¶ 31. Dr. Almeroth provides additional reasoning to support this conclusion. For example, Henley explains that “[s]ystem controller 64 responds to inputs from user control set top boxes 65 to cause commands to be generated that enable media streamer 10 to access a requested video presentation.” Ex. 1013, 8:30–32. In light of this, because an end user would interact with the set-top box shown as user control 65, Dr. Almeroth reasons that “it would make no sense” for display 66 to be for the end user. Ex. 2005 ¶ 32. We agree with this reasoning. In addition, Dr. Almeroth observes that Henley describes two types of interfaces for media streamer 10, a command line interface and a graphical user interface. Id. ¶ 33 (citing Ex. 1013, 18:47–50). Because the command line interface can be used for “batch” functionality, Dr. Almeroth reasons, and we agree, that the command line interface is for broadcast operators, rather than for end users. Id. With respect to the graphical user interface shown in Figure 8, reproduced above, Dr. Almeroth further reasons that a person of skill in the art would understand that it relates to operator controls, rather than end-user controls, because Henley specifically describes it as showing keys “used to operate the media streamer.” Id. ¶ 34; Ex. 1013, 4:5– 6. In other words, according to Dr. Almeroth, “[t]he graphical user interface corresponds to the command line interface.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 34. Dr. Almeroth’s reasoning is compelling. Notably, Figure 8 shows “Batch” button 130 and “Import/Export” button 132 to “move video data into and out of the media streamer.” See Ex. 1013, 19:20–22, 19:30–31. As Dr. Almeroth testifies, these are not functions that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be available for end users, but are appropriate for broadcast operators: “None of these commands are consistent with those that would be available to an end user of, e.g., a set top box or pay-per-view system.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 35. In light of this compelling testimony, we agree with Patent Owner and find that “Henley . . . does not describe . . . the end user’s interface or controls.” See Prelim. Resp. 22.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,965,932

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.