- Lightricks Ltd. v. Plotagraph, Inc. And Sascha ConnellyInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00569 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted AEM, IMU-Okabe, or IMU-Okabe-Li ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least one 1–2 years of experience in image processing and animation,” and “[l]ess education could have been compensated with more experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29). Petitioner adds that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have also been familiar with existing systems for image processing and animation and understood how to implement such systems.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46). Patent Owner indicates that it proposes “construction for certain claim language below,” but it does not actually identify any claim language for construction, let alone provide any constructions. Prelim. Resp. 16–17. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“First, the disclosure of AEM that Petitioner relies on for teaching selecting certain pixels to be transparent or nontransparent pertains to “compositing,” i.e., creating a composite image from multiple images. Ex. 1003, 315–16. AEM states specifically: “To create a composite from multiple images, you can make parts of one or more of the images transparent so that other images can show through.” Id. at 315. Thus, each pixel in the composite image is either transparent or nontransparent such that every pixel is “selected” under Petitioner’s usage of the term “selecting.” The possibility that some of these pixels, in theory, could extend along a non-linear motion path of a Deform pin is mere happenstance—we are not directed to any disclosure in AEM of actually selecting a set of pixels (either transparent or nontransparent) that extend along a non-linear motion path. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a claim limitation that requires contiguity). We are not persuaded on the record before us that AEM’s disclosure of designating pixels as transparent or nontransparent satisfies selecting a first set of pixels extending along a non-linear pathway.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,301,119 - PTAB · Sep 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00391 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Williams and Pugel would have motivated a skilled artisan to make the claimed combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“4. Summary We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Williams and Pugel to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that at least one claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Williams and Pugel.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contends that the outcome of this proceeding is determined by the level of ordinary skill in the art. We apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art except that we delete the qualifier “at least” which renders the level of skill ambiguous and may encompass levels of skill beyond ordinary. We consider Petitioner’s proposed level of skill to be consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’576 patent and the prior art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We also consider the proposed level of skill to be reflective of the education and experience a person of ordinary skill would have had.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Given that no claim terms are in controversy, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary. 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.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Accordingly, we construe the claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claims 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).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“digitization earlier in Williams’s system by locating an ADC at its front end. However, as Pugel shows, it is not simply a matter of moving an ADC earlier in the processing, because the ADC requires Pugel’s analog processing section 110 including AGC 112 (optional), bandpass filter 114, amplifier 116, and AGC 118. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 16–18. Petitioner does not adequately address the fact that the ADC requires this pre-processing section to filter out noise over the entire broadband signal, which adds complexity and expense to the system, in determining whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references at the time of the invention. See Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“a reasonable fact finder could have found these tradeoffs to yield an unappetizing combination); Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Board weighed competing evidence regarding the relevant tradeoffs and concluded that the combination would negate a key benefit of one of the references which would have outweighed any reason to combine). We also agree with Patent Owner that substituting digital components for analog ones is not as straightforward as Petitioner alleges. Prelim. Resp. 48; Pet. 41. According to Petitioner, Williams performs the tuning (i.e., channel selection), frequency translating, and signal combining in the analog domain. Petitioner contends that tuning and frequency translating could be performed in the digital domain using digital equivalents of Williams’s analog components. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–119). However, Petitioner does not identify adequately what these digital equivalents are and whether they were available at the time of the ’576 patent. Petitioner further contends that signal combining could be accomplished by converting signals to analog before summing at Williams’s summer 68, or by summing the signals in the digital domain and converting the output of summer 68 to analog. Pet. 41. Petitioner does not address the complexity or costs associated with additional DACs or a digital combiner in its proposed combination and whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references in light of these disadvantages. And Patent Owner rightly notes that Pugel does not disclose a digital combiner.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,130,576 - DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00392 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims: claims 9–12 lacked a sufficient obviousness showing, and claims 1–8 and 13–19 were disclaimed.
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) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had (i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and three or more years of experience working in television signal processing and satellite communications; (ii) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in television signal processing and satellite communications; or (iii) a doctoral degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in television signal processing and satellite communications. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 13 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its Preliminary Response. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, rather than filling a purported gap in Carnero’s disclosure, Petitioner’s proposed combination essentially requires replacing Carnero’s input device 16 with Fisk’s server 56. But neither the Petition nor Dr. Schonfeld explains sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use server 56 instead of input unit 16 to input data into the microprocessors of converters 4. See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 119. More importantly, setting aside the problem of replacing input unit 16 for the sake of argument, we disagree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use server 56 to input that frequency data into signal processing unit 400 “based on requests for programs it receives from the LCUs,” as argued by Petitioner. See Pet. 38 (emphasis added). Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that the requests for programs generated by Fisk’s LCUs are intended to select channels from a predetermined lineup of channels and are not disclosed as being able to change the channels in the predetermined lineup, such that server 56 “can only distribute the decoded programs it is fed.” See Prelim. Resp. 20–21. By way of example, Patent Owner contends that Figure 6 of Fisk depicts server 56 as having three pre-programmed satellite decoders (SAT1, SAT2, and SAT3) that” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,542,715 - Lightricks Ltd. v. Plotagraph, Inc. And Sascha ConnellyInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00152 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 42). Patent Owner proposes claim constructions for “set of pixels,” “pixels that lie along a link/length of pathway between the starting point and the ending point,” and “in a loop.” Prelim. Resp. 17–28. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“First, the disclosure of AEM that Petitioner relies on for teaching selecting certain pixels to be transparent or nontransparent pertains to “compositing,” i.e., creating a composite image from multiple images. Ex. 1003, 315–16. AEM states specifically: “To create a composite from multiple images, you can make parts of one or more of the images transparent so that other images can show through.” Id. at 315. Thus, each pixel in the composite image is either transparent or nontransparent such that every pixel is “selected” under Petitioner’s usage of the term “selecting.” The possibility that some of these pixels, in theory, could extend along a non-linear motion path of a Deform pin is mere happenstance—we are not directed to any disclosure in AEM of actually selecting a set of pixels (either transparent or nontransparent) that extend along a non-linear motion path. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a claim limitation that requires contiguity). We are not persuaded on the record before us that AEM’s disclosure of designating pixels as transparent or nontransparent satisfies selecting a first set of pixels extending along a nonlinear pathway. Second, Petitioner’s argument relies on AEM teaching that “AECS6 necessarily allows a user . . . to select any or all pixels of the layer to be nontransparent and thus included in the layer’s mesh to be moved and animated.” Pet. 21. We disagree, however, that AEM discloses selecting pixels to be nontransparent and including these pixels in a mesh to be moved and animated. That AECS6 arguably allows selected nontransparent pixels to be included in a mesh is not sufficient to establish that AEM discloses doing so. Petitioner contends that AECS6 and the screenshots of AECS6 created by Dr. Greenspun establish the background knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art but does not explain adequately why AECS6’s alleged capability would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to understand AEM to teach selecting pixels of a layer to be nontransparent and including the selected pixels in the layer’s mesh. See Pet. 17 n.6 (quoting Qualcomm, 24 F.4th at 1376). Again, any pixels selected to be nontransparent being included in a mesh is mere happenstance.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,558,342 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01561 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–14 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness grounds, and institution would be inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“In claim 1, “server” first appears in limitation 1b’s recitation of “a server.” Ex. 1001, 21:27–28. Every subsequent mention of “server” in claim 1 recites “the server.” Id. at 21:37, 21:40, 21:48, 21:51, 21:53, 21:60. Thus, grammatically, each time claim 1 recites “the server,” it refers back to the same “server” as in all previous recitations. Accordingly, claim 1’s plain meaning refers to the same server each and every time it recites “server.” See Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, --- F.4th ---, 2023 WL 2778774 *3–4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2023) (explaining claim language reciting element with definite article refers to same element previously recited) (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Harari v. Lee, 655 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Neither party argues that any reason exists to construe claim 1’s recitations of “a server” and “the server” differently from their plain meanings. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. We construe every one of claim 1’s recitations of “server” as referring to the same server (the “same-server requirement”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier. As discussed above in Section II.B, we construe claim 1’s recitations of “the server” as all limited to the same server. Thus, as Petitioner contemplated, “the server” recited in limitation 1i is “limited to the same server as in antecedent [limitations 1e–1f].” Pet. 30. Petitioner inadequately supports its position that “Fletchall teaches that also.” Id. at 30–31. Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s explanations do not persuasively support their position that Fletchall teaches product database (121) and payment server (130) are the same server.4 Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212. For example, the observation that product database (121) and payment server (130) are part of system (100) and can communicate with one another via computer network (120) does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212; Prelim. Resp. 24. As Patent Owner 4 Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Shamos have some other basis for contending that Fletchall teaches using the same server in performing the actions recited in limitations 1f and 1i, they do not support that view with sufficiently persuasive evidence or explanation. argues, following Petitioner’s reasoning would lead to the untenable conclusion that any two components of system (100) that can communicate with one another via computer network (120), including mobile device (104) and product database (121), would be part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s contentions unpersuasive. We also find unavailing Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s observation that “Fletchall teaches that the product database 121 can be hosted on a merchant server . . . and be part of the common system 100 that includes payment server 130.” Pet. 31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 211. Hosting product database (121) on a merchant server does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Nor does including product database (121) and payment server (130) within system (100).” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier. As discussed above in Section II.B, we construe claim 1’s recitations of “the server” as all limited to the same server. Thus, as Petitioner contemplated, “the server” recited in limitation 1i is “limited to the same server as in antecedent [limitations 1e–1f].” Pet. 30. Petitioner inadequately supports its position that “Fletchall teaches that also.” Id. at 30–31. Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s explanations do not persuasively support their position that Fletchall teaches product database (121) and payment server (130) are the same server.4 Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212. For example, the observation that product database (121) and payment server (130) are part of system (100) and can communicate with one another via computer network (120) does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212; Prelim. Resp. 24. As Patent Owner 4 Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Shamos have some other basis for contending that Fletchall teaches using the same server in performing the actions recited in limitations 1f and 1i, they do not support that view with sufficiently persuasive evidence or explanation. argues, following Petitioner’s reasoning would lead to the untenable conclusion that any two components of system (100) that can communicate with one another via computer network (120), including mobile device (104) and product database (121), would be part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s contentions unpersuasive. We also find unavailing Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s observation that “Fletchall teaches that the product database 121 can be hosted on a merchant server . . . and be part of the common system 100 that includes payment server 130.” Pet. 31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 211. Hosting product database (121) on a merchant server does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Nor does including product database (121) and payment server (130) within system (100).” slip op. at 23
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“functions (VTSAs) of the server 111, the server 130, and merchant server hosting the product database 121 into the same server.” Pet. 41. As explained above in Sections II.C.3.a–c, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing unpatentability of either of challenged independent claims 1 and 10 or any of challenged dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8, 9, and 11–14. Considering this, to the extent Petitioner’s arguments and evidence may demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of dependent claim 5 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier, we do not find that instituting inter partes review would use the Board’s or the parties’ resources efficiently. See 35 U.S.C. 316(b).” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,803,435 - Apple Inc. v. Shenzhen Rfcyber Asset Management, LLPInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01240 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that Hayaashi and Prisma rendered the claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently that the proposed combination of Hayaashi and Prisma would incorporate Prisma’s JCVM. See id. at 15–19. Instead, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have simply needed to modify Hayaashi’s smart IC card chip 171 to incorporate Prisma’s core smart card elements, including CALC/OS and support for third-party e-purse applets.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158–167). More specifically, Petitioner provides an annotated diagram, reproduced below, to identify the smart card components from Prisma to be incorporated into Hayaashi’s smart IC card chip 171. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1005, 9). In this annotated diagram, Petitioner adds red borders to the three boxes labeled “e-purse,” “CALC,” and “OS,”5 thereby 5 “CALC” is Prisma’s Card and Application LifeCycle manager, and “OS” is the card’s operating system. Ex. 1005, 6, 9. Hayaashi. As such, Petitioner does not specify Prisma’s JCVM as component that is incorporated into Hayaashi. To the extent Petitioner’s reference to “support for third-party e-purse applets” is meant to include Prisma’s JCVM, such a broad statement that fails to specifically mention Prisma’s JCVM lacks sufficient specificity to suggest that it would have been obvious to modify Hayaashi to include Prisma’s JCVM. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also Intelligent Bio- Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). For these reasons, we determine that the Petition fails to explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to incorporate Prisma’s JCVM into Hayaashi.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“purse applet and provides a response the e-purse applet is configured to expect” as claimed because the JCVM ensures that an applet operates as expected and that the applet’s requests are handled as the applet expects regardless of the underlying hardware platform. Ex. 1003 ¶ 178. This testimony, however, is entitled to little weight because Mr. Smith fails to provide the underlying basis for his opinion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Board can reject arguments based on expert testimony that lacks specificity or detail). The assertion that “the JCVM ensures that an applet operates as expected” is a conclusory statement not supported sufficiently by any objective evidence or analysis. Accordingly, we do not find Mr. Smith’s testimony of this point persuasive. Moreover, neither the Petition nor Mr. Smith explains sufficiently how Hayaashi or Prisma disclose providing an e-purse applet that the JCVM would interact with in the manner claimed. For the above reasons, we determine Petitioner has not met its burden” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,118,218 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01241 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood that the combination accounts for limitation 1(f). As Patent Owner states, neither Prisma nor Hayaashi contain any express discussion of transaction logs, let alone “causing an emulator” to do so “after an authenticity of the commands is verified by the e-purse applet.” To fill this hole in the combination, Petitioner leans heavily on what it contends a person of ordinary skill “would have understood” about the modified system. See, e.g., Pet. 38. It is unclear whether Petitioner relying on inherency, some modification to the combination, or some combination with other knowledge of a person of ordinary skill to arrive at this limitation. But setting aside this problem for a moment, we find that Petitioner has failed to show sufficiently that what it contends is the emulator, the Java Card Virtual Machine, updates the logs, and more importantly, whether the logs are updated after the e-purse applet verifies the commands. Again, there is no express disclosure in Prisma of these components performing these actions. Instead, Petitioner relies on the testimony of Mr. Smith to show that the combination accounts for this limitation. See Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 208–215). But we find Mr. Smith’s testimony to be insufficient because it relies lacks adequate support for his assertions about what he contends a person of ordinary skill “would have understood” about how the hypothetical third-party e-purse application would have operated. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 213–214. Mr. Smith’s contentions about what a person of ordinary skill are supported only with citations to vague passages in the Prisma reference that merely mention the use of Application for Secure Personal Identification and Communication (ASPIC) and public key infrastructure (PKI). See id. ¶ 213 (citing Ex. 1005, 21–22). Mr. Smith gestures to these passages, but then goes far beyond what those passages disclose without adequately tying his contentions to the actual disclosures and additional supporting evidence. See id. ¶¶ 213–214. Without more explanation and support, we find this evidence inadequate to show that the combination would actually suggest this limitation.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the Declaration testimony of Mr. Smith, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’855 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–36). Patent Owner states that it “utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art,” but only for its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’855 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“reasonable likelihood that the combination accounts for limitation 1(f). As Patent Owner states, neither Prisma nor Hayaashi contain any express discussion of transaction logs, let alone “causing an emulator” to do so “after an authenticity of the commands is verified by the e-purse applet.” To fill this hole in the combination, Petitioner leans heavily on what it contends a person of ordinary skill “would have understood” about the modified system. See, e.g., Pet. 38. It is unclear whether Petitioner relying on inherency, some modification to the combination, or some combination with other knowledge of a person of ordinary skill to arrive at this limitation. But setting aside this problem for a moment, we find that Petitioner has failed to show sufficiently that what it contends is the emulator, the Java Card Virtual Machine, updates the logs, and more importantly, whether the logs are updated after the e-purse applet verifies the commands. Again, there is no express disclosure in Prisma of these components performing these actions. Instead, Petitioner relies on the testimony of Mr. Smith to show that the combination accounts for this limitation. See Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 208–215). But we find Mr. Smith’s testimony to be insufficient because it relies lacks adequate support for his assertions about what he contends a person of ordinary skill “would have understood” about how the hypothetical third-party e-purse application would have operated. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 213–214. Mr. Smith’s contentions about what a person of ordinary skill are supported only with citations to vague passages in the Prisma reference that merely mention the use of Application for Secure Personal Identification and Communication (ASPIC) and public key infrastructure (PKI). See id. ¶ 213 (citing Ex. 1005, 21–22). Mr. Smith gestures to these passages, but then goes far beyond what those passages disclose without adequately tying his contentions to the actual disclosures and additional supporting evidence. See id. ¶¶ 213–214. Without more explanation and support, we find this evidence inadequate to show that the combination would actually suggest this limitation. The lack of clarity of what theory the Petition is relying for this limitation exacerbates this problem. Because the references are completely silent as to “transaction logs,” let alone when, how, or by what they are updated, it is important for Petitioner to explain how it is filling that gap. Instead, Petitioner and Mr. Smith venture far beyond the disclosure of the actual references to what they contend a person of ordinary skill “would have known.” See Pet. 36–38; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 208–215. At some points, Petitioner appears to attempt to rely on the underlying Prisma Proton system, not just the Prisma reference relied on in this ground. See Pet. 38 (discussing what was known about the Prisma Proton system). But 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) limits inter partes review as allowed “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patent or printed publications.” We decline to use the actual system to fill in gaps in the printed publication. Focusing our attention on the Prisma reference itself, we are only left with Mr. Smith’s conjectures about what a person of ordinary skill “would have known” without sufficient reasoning of how a person of ordinary skill would have combined this knowledge with the reference in precisely this way to arrive at the claim limitation. A rejection based on obviousness requires articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In this case, having carefully reviewed the evidence currently presented, we cannot say that Petitioner has presented sufficient articulated reasoning to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that this limitation would have been obvious in view of the combination presented. Because all of the grounds and challenged claims contain a similar limitation to limitation 1(f) and rely on similar reasoning, we determine that Petitioner has also failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on those grounds as well.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,448,855 - Flowco Production Solutions, LLC v. Well Master CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01385 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Flowco did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 3–17 obvious over Victor and Yerian, with or without Davis.
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) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus deny institution of inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) (“At any time prior to a decision on institution of inter partes review, the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board decision not to institute inter partes review.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“may address the same or similar problems is not adequate to demonstrate motivation to combine, even at this stage of the proceeding. See PO Resp. 22–24; see also Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (concluding that prior art padlocks were analogous art because they “were clearly directed toward the same problem the inventor was trying to solve in the” patent at issue); Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2018) (Decision Denying Institution) (informative) (“Demonstrating that a reference is analogous art or relevant to the field of endeavor of the challenged patent is not sufficient to establish that one of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine its teachings with other prior art in the manner set forth in the claim.”). Even so, Patent Owner provides persuasive argument and evidence through its expert, Mr. Cosby, that Victor and Yerian address very different problems and solve these problems in very different ways. See Prelim. Resp. 23–27 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 56–100). Petitioner’s conclusory attorney arguments do not address these differences and how they would impact the motivation to combine the teachings of Victor and Yerian, despite these differences.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,395,865 - Flowco Production Solutions, LLC v. Well Master CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01384 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–16 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over Victor and Yerian, with or without Davis.
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) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus deny institution of inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) (“At any time prior to a decision on institution of inter partes review, the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board decision not to institute inter partes review.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have [had] at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or an appropriate engineering discipline, as well as at least three years of experience in designing well plungers.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner “does not dispute” Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears consistent with the current record, including the prior art. See Prelim. Resp. 11; GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner “proposes that all claim terms be given their ordinary and customary meanings and that no explicit constructions are necessary.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not dispute that position. See Prelim. Resp. 11. We need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As noted by Patent Owner, however, the mere fact that two references may address the same or similar problems is not adequate to demonstrate motivation to combine, even at this stage of the proceeding. See PO Resp. 21–23; see also Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (concluding that prior art padlocks were analogous art because they “were clearly directed toward the same problem the inventor was trying to solve in the” patent at issue); Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2018) (Decision Denying Institution) (informative) (“Demonstrating that a reference is analogous art or relevant to the field of endeavor of the challenged patent is not sufficient to establish that one of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine its teachings with other prior art in the manner set forth in the claim.”). Even so, Patent Owner provides persuasive argument and evidence through its expert, Mr. Cosby, that Victor and Yerian address very different problems and solve these problems in very different ways. See Prelim. Resp. 23–27 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 56–100). Petitioner’s conclusory attorney arguments do not address these differences and how they would impact the motivation to combine the teachings of Victor and Yerian, despite these differences.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,793,728 - Flowco Production Solutions LLC v. Well Master CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01386 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11, 13, 15, 16, 18–21, 23, and 24 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We therefore deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or an appropriate engineering discipline, as well as at least three years of experience in designing well plungers.” Pet. 5–6. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention. Prelim. Resp. 2; Ex. 2001 ¶ 38. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“The ’892 patent prosecution history evidences that an unimpeded fluid path does not include valves. During prosecution, Patent Owner amended the independent claims to claim “an unimpeded fluid path” in claims 1 and 23 and “an unimpeded narrow passageway within the fluid path” in claim 18. Ex. 1002, 61–64 (emphasis in original). Patent Owner argued that, The Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 18, and 23 to clarify that the fluid path is unimpeded. The alleged fluid path through the body of the plunger disclosed by Brown identified at page 4 of the Office Action is not unimpeded due to the presence of valves 76 and 102/104. Thus, Brown cannot anticipate claims 1, 2, 4–8, 12, 18, 19 or 23 of the present application. Id. at 66. In response, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowability but did not provide a Statement of Reasons for Allowance. Id. at 43. “Prosecution disclaimer can arise from both claim amendments and arguments.” Tech. Props. Ltd. v. Huawei Techs. Co., 849 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, Patent Owner’s amendments to claim an unimpeded fluid path/passageway and arguments distinguishing Brown’s fluid path as being impeded by valves 76, 102/104 (versus unimpeded as claimed) clearly and unmistakably disclaimed coverage of plungers having bypass valves in the fluid path and narrow passageway through the plunger body.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“b. Motivation to Combine Further, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that a skilled artisan would not have modified Gray’s bypass valve with Victor’s stopper because their different principles of operation would render Gray’s plunger unsuitable for its intended purpose of providing lift in early stage wells. See Prelim Resp. 35–38 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 66–75, 103–107, 111). Mr. Cosby testifies that Gray and Victor operate differently so adding a narrow passage of Victor to Gray’s plunger would reduce the ability of Gray’s plunger to work in high pressure wells. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 103–07; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 57, 91, 98, 111–12. The record supports Mr. Cosby’s testimony, and Petitioner’s attorney arguments do not address the arguments and evidence. Pet. 14–15. For this additional reason, Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating the unpatentability of any of claims 1–11, 13, 15, 16, 18–21, 23, and 24 under Ground 1.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,627,892
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.