• Røde Microphones, LLC / Freedman Electronics Pty Ltd. v. Zaxcom, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2025 · IPR2025-00557 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Strub teaches or suggests “a remote receiver, the remote receiver configured to create at least one master timecode and to receive audio data,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Strub and Woo.” slip op. at 26

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the “master timecode generator” produces a signal that “controls” another timecode generator. See Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing a dictionary definition of “master” as “[one] that has control over another or others,” Ex. 2019, 3). We see no basis, however, to limit the claim term to a particular type of control. Patent Owner points to Figure 6 of the ’444 patent where “the master timecode generator creates master timecodes that are used to control the speed of the local timecode generator to ensure the two timecode generators are synchronized.” See Prelim. Resp. 19‒20 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 9‒16, Fig. 6). But Figure 6 merely depicts an exemplary “process for recording audio and for replaying and re-recording segments of missed audio in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.” See Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 15‒17. Further, the Specification describes the exemplary embodiment of Figure 6 as a master unit providing master timecodes to a local audio device, which “synchronizes (e.g., jam syncs) its respective on board local timecode generator with the master timecodes,” but does not specify exactly how the master unit exercises control. Id. at col. 17, ll. 9‒17. Thus, we do not include any particular control mechanism (e.g., changing the speed of the local timecode generator) in our interpretation at this time. Based on the record presented, we interpret “master timecode generator” as “a producer of a master time reference signal that controls at least one other timecode generator” and “master timecode” as “a time reference signal used to synchronize at least one device.”” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Strub teaches or suggests limitation 1[A]. Petitioner relies on Strub’s disclosure of a “master” recording unit as the claimed “remote receiver.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 38, ll. 29‒39). The cited portion of Strub is reproduced below: Data other than recording data can also be exchanged between recording units. For example, it may be desirable to coordinate the recordings obtained by recording units so that frames of visual recording data obtained by different recording units are temporally synchronized (e.g., so that a frame begins at the same time for each recording unit). This can be done by transmitting a synchronization pulse from a “master” recording unit to each of the other recording units (“slave” recording units). (Synchronizing analog visual data acquisition devices in this way is referred to as “genlocking.”) Ex. 1003, col. 38, ll. 29‒39. As argued by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 36), the cited procedure involves synchronizing frames of visual recording data, not audio recording data. Petitioner has not disputed Patent Owner’s assertions that the described “genlocking” technique is a video synchronization technique that does not apply to or affect the synchronization of system clocks or audio timestamps and has no bearing on audio synchronization. Nor does Petitioner explain in the Petition or the Preliminary Reply how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have applied this teaching to audio data recorded by an audio device. Petitioner cites this visual recording data synchronization passage as a solution to a problem that Strub identifies in clocks not being adequately synchronized to enable use of time-stamps associated with recordings to be used to synchronize the recordings. See Prelim. Reply 1‒2 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 38, ll. 29‒37, col. 79, l. 63‒col. 80, l. 2). However, immediately following the cited portion that identifies this problem, Strub further explains that “[i]f recording units according to the invention each include a GPS receiver, such mis-synchronization will only exist to an appreciable degree if one or more recording units are shielded from a GPS transmitter system for an extended period of time, e.g., several hours.” Ex. 1003, col. 80, ll. 2–27. Thus, Strub suggests that the solution to this problem is for the recording units to receive their timecodes not from a master recording unit, as argued by Petitioner, but from a GPS satellite.4 Petitioner does not address this teaching.” slip op. at 22

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not rely on Woo as teaching or suggesting limitation 1[A]; Petitioner relies solely on the teachings of Strub. See Pet. 33–35 (arguing that “Strub teaches this element”). Petitioner references Strub’s teachings as being “consistent with and reinforced by the Woo reference” in the Preliminary Reply (Prelim. Reply 2), but this is not sufficient to rely on Woo, alone or in combination with Strub, as teaching this limitation. We also agree that the Lectrosonics IPRs’ findings regarding Woo teaching the “master timecode generator” limitation recited in those challenged claims are inapplicable here, where claim 1 recites additional limitations not present in those challenged claims. Compare Ex. 1001, col. 43, ll. 26‒27 (claim 1 of the ’444 patent: “a remote receiver, the remote receiver configured to create at least one master timecode and to receive audio data”) with Ex. 1028, col. 23, ll. 20‒21 (claim 1 of the ’814 patent: “at least one master timecode generator for generating a plurality of master timecodes”) and Ex. 1030, col. 23, ll. 38‒39 (claim 1 of the ’902 patent: “at least one master timecode generator for generating a plurality of master timecodes”). Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Strub teaches or suggests “a remote receiver, the remote receiver configured to create at least one master timecode and to receive audio data,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Strub and Woo.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,051,444
• Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. / Pensando Systems, Inc. v. Xtreamedge, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00479 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were obvious over Erskine, Scherzer, or Scherzer and Gillett.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. CONCLUSION Based on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’634 patent challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’634 patent (July 2018), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a similar major with at least two years of experience in the field; or a master’s degree with specialization in the field,” where “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–13). Petitioner further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had knowledge of “[d]esigning and using systems that include endpoint devices (e.g., client devices) and servers for establishing network connections and data transfer,” “[r]ecognizing and applying the client-server architecture,” and “[u]sing and applying concepts from known telecommunication and networking frameworks, protocols and standards, including TCP/IP, IEEE 802.11, VoIP, cellular systems and other known frameworks and standards.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 14). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’634 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’634 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 4–29 (describing in the “Background” section of the ’634 patent a “network connection between two endpoints” and known methods of reaching “full effective bandwidth capacity” in a network).” slip op. at 8

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

    “C. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be 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). Petitioner notes that it proposed a construction for the claim term “geographical area” in the district court case, but states that it “do[es] not believe proposing a construction for the term is necessary in this proceeding because the relied upon teachings of the prior art references are consistent with examples of ‘geographical area’ included in the ’634 patent [S]pecification.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Board need not engage in express claim construction at this stage of the proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 5. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Erskine teaches or suggests the second requirement of limitation [1c], i.e., “initiating the next network connection . . . with a transmission bandwidth based on the parameter values for the past network connection.” Petitioner’s theory is that (1) the QoS parameters in Erskine are for a “past” connection from one zone to another, (2) the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth is “based on” the QoS parameters, and (3) a new call only proceeds if the transmission bandwidth needed for the call added to the current bandwidth being used over the interzone link is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth, so Erskine therefore teaches a call with a transmission bandwidth determined “based on” the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth (which in turn is determined “based on” the QoS parameters). See Pet. 27–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–60 (similar testimony from Dr. Crovella). As Patent Owner points out, however, Erskine only makes “a binary, accept/reject decision as to whether to allow a new call to proceed based on a comparison between the bandwidth needed for the call and a predetermined ‘sliding maximum interzone bandwidth value.’” See Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Specifically, the additional bandwidth that would be needed for the call is added to the current bandwidth being used on the interzone link; if the sum of those values is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth for the link, the call “proceeds”; otherwise, it is “blocked.” Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 36–40, col. 6, l. 55–col. 7, l. 10, col. 8, ll. 36–43, col. 9, ll. 9–26, col. 10, ll. 23–25 (the sum is compared to the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth “to determine whether enough bandwidth is available to proceed with the new call”), Fig. 3 (steps 308, 310, and 312). Erskine repeatedly refers to the bandwidth for the new call as the amount of bandwidth that is “necessary” or “required” to handle the call. See, e.g., id. at col. 1, ll. 43–57 (“an amount of bandwidth necessary to handle the new call”), col. 6, ll. 61–64 (“the additional bandwidth required (of the new call)”), col. 8, ll. 36–40 (“the bandwidth necessary for the new call”), col. 9, ll. 16–21 (“the anticipated additional bandwidth necessary for the new call”), 54–56 (“the bandwidth amount the new call will utilize (if connected)”), col. 10, ll. 21–23 (same), 41–43 (same), col. 12, ll. 1–2 (“an amount of bandwidth necessary to handle the new call”). It is that value—determined prior to the addition and comparison to the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth—that will be used for the new call if it is allowed to “proceed[].” Id. at col. 6, ll. 64–67 (if the sum is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth, the call “proceeds” and “the QoS table is updated with the additional bandwidth used by that call”). Erskine does not describe the transmission bandwidth for the new call as being based on any parameter values for a past network connection, but rather as “whatever bandwidth the system determined is necessary for the additional call.” See Prelim. Resp. 8–9. In other words, the transmission bandwidth needed for a new call is predetermined and independent of whatever the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth is currently. See id.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,944,634
• SML Intelligent Inventory Solutions LLC / SML (USA) Inc. v. Adasa Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 20, 2025 · IPR2025-00125 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). An 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 Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’967 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Petitioner adopts the following definition of a person of ordinarily skill in the art (hereafter, sometimes “POSITA”) of the ’967 patent proposed by Patent Owner in the Avery Dennison litigation: [A]t least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering, or a related discipline, and at least five years of experience which would consist of, A, designing, developing, evaluating and/or using RFID or other AIDC [automatic identification and data capture] technologies in inventory management, unique object identification, and/or security; or B, studying and conducting research related to RFID technologies and using RFID and other AIDC technologies in inventory management, unique object identification, and/or security. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1030, 707:3–13). Patent Owner does not offer a definition of an ordinarily skilled artisan of the ’967 patent at this time. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we apply Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition for purposes of determining whether to institute review because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references and the problems addressed in the ’967 patent.” slip op. at 17

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner proposes the following claim constructions: “an allocated block of serial numbers” as “a pre-authorized range of binary serial numbers” and “uniquely corresponding” as the “term’s plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with the articulation of the plain and ordinary meaning” in the Avery Dennison litigation. Pet. 8–12. As to the remaining claim terms, Petitioner applies the district court’s constructions in the Avery Dennison litigation. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1028). Patent Owner applies the following constructions that were entered during in the Avery Dennison litigation: “object class information space” as “data field within the memory of the RFID integrated circuit chip for information identifying the class of an object, such as a company prefix, item reference code, partition value, and/or filter value,” “unique serial number space” as “data field within the memory of the RFID integrated circuit for information identifying a unique serial number,” “being assigned a limited number of most significant bits” as “includes a limited, predefined sequence at the leading end,” “remaining bits of lesser significance” as “the remaining lower order bits at the trailing end,” “is encoded with one serial number instance” as “has stored within it one serial number instance,” “an allocated block of serial numbers” as “a pre-authorized range of serial numbers,” and “uniquely corresponding” as its plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 32. For purposes of resolving whether to institute trial, we adopt and apply the interpretations stated in the district court’s claim construction order and applied by the Federal Circuit on appeal, Ex. 1028.11 See 55 F.4th 900, 908–909, 912–913 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing the district court’s claim construction order).” slip op. at 18

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

    “IBM200 and Kuhno would have made it obvious for a POSITA to commission RFID tags with unique serial numbers partitioned into MSBs and bits of lesser significance. See Pet. 34–39; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 167–176. However, on this record, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the POSITA, having read IBM200 and Kuhno, would have been led to create a serial number space in which the limited number of “most significant bits” uniquely corresponds to those bits assigned to an allocated block of serial numbers, as recited in limitation [f].” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,798,967
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01449 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 2 were unpatentable under any of the four asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary 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.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” where “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 25). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’463 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’463 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “C. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be 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). Petitioner argues that “the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. 25–26. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Preliminary Response. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Further, because Bowen’s disclosed barrier height is outside the claimed range, Petitioner relies on Soukup’s purported teaching of a barrier height of “about 0.33 eV” and contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “achieve” that barrier height for the MgO barrier of Bowen’s device. Id. at 34–36. The data that Petitioner relies on from Soukup for the “about 0.33 eV” barrier height, though, was determined using the slope of an Arrhenius plot, not Simmons’ formula. Ex. 1028, 3229 (Abstract), 3231–33, Table I. In Soukup, apparent barrier heights for the samples were determined using (1) the slope of an Arrhenius plot, and (2) the zero-field intercept of the straight line logI versus V1/2 plot. Id. at 3229 (Abstract), 3230–32, Fig. 3, Table I. Reproduced below is Table I of Soukup, as annotated by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 39): Annotated Table I of Soukup includes the results of analyses of sample test data, with the column highlighted in yellow showing the barrier heights obtained by a zero-field intercept method and the column highlighted in blue showing barrier heights obtained from the slope of an Arrhenius plot. See Ex. 1028, 3233; Prelim. Resp. 38–39. Dr. Bokor testifies that “Soukup disclosed that Simmons’ formula was used to approximate tunnel barrier height” and “[o]ne of skill would have understood the ‘height and the bias dependence of the insulator potential-energy barrier’ [referenced in Soukup] included the tunnel barrier height.” Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 145–147 (quoting Ex. 1028, 3229; citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 45–49). We do not find this testimony persuasive. Although Soukup refers to “Simmons’ model” and the Simmons 1963 paper in its “Introduction,” it does not teach any calculation using Simmons’ formula to obtain a barrier height within the claimed range. See Ex. 1028, 3229, 3236 n.1; Prelim. Resp. 63. Soukup plainly recognizes that there are methods of calculating barrier height other than Simmons’ formula, and discusses at length its calculations using two such methods: the Arrhenius plot method and the zero-field intercept method. See, e.g., Ex. 1028, 3229 (Abstract) (“These results . . . indicate a potential barrier height of about 0.72 eV when determined from the zero-field intercept of the straight line logI vs V1/2 plot and about 0.33 eV when obtained from an Arrhenius plot.”), 3232–33. Petitioner does not address whether the 0.33 eV barrier height it relies on from Soukup (determined using the Arrhenius plot method) would still be within the claimed range if calculated using Simmons’ formula. See Prelim. Resp. 63. Nor does Petitioner rely on any values from Soukup’s disclosure that would be used as the variables in Simmons’ formula—Petitioner relies solely on Bowen. See Pet. 39–42. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that Bowen and Soukup teach a barrier height within the claimed range, obtained using equation (1), is not persuasive. See id. at 34–42.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,123,463
• Ao Kaspersky Lab v. Open Text Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01160 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Ideses, alone or with Sharma, teaches selectively turning feature-vector features on or off during classification.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner fails to show how the disclosures relied on in Ideses teach or suggest “generating a feature vector from [a] plurality of static data points using a classifier” where features are “selectively turned on or off” based on a value of one of the static data points. Even if Ideses’s omission of insignificant features could be considered “turn[ing] [them] on or off,” that happens in the creation of the classifier. Ideses does not teach or suggest “wherein one or more features of the feature vector are selectively turned on or off” subsequent to “generating a feature vector . . . using a classifier,” as recited in each challenged claim.” slip op. at 21

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the claims are directed to the classification stage, as they require extracting “a plurality of static data points” from an executable file and “generating a feature vector from [that] plurality of static data points using a classifier” (emphasis added). The claims also recite that the classifier has been “trained to classify” (emphasis added). Further, the claims recite that “one or more features of the feature vector” are selectively turned on or off, indicating that the feature vector has been generated. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently for institution that Ideses teaches or suggests a classification method in which one or more features of a feature vector generated from a plurality of static data points are selectively turned on or off based on the value of one of the static data points. As explained in the summary of Ideses above, Ideses describes “methods and systems for generating classifiers” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 2) in which “extracted features [may be] identified for pruning to generate the group of classifying features,” and “the selection [may be] based on identifying a classification effectiveness rank for each of the features of the training software applications” or “based on identifying resource requirements for each of the features of the training software applications.” See id. ¶¶ 98, 99. “[T]he group of classifying features [may be] selected based on the significance of the extracted features,” such that “[s]ignificant features, such as those that have a large effect on the classification outcomes, may be retained” and “[i]nsignificant features, such as those that have a small, negligible or no effect on classification outcome may be pruned.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 106.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “The Petition includes no arguments similar to Dr. Subrahmanian’s testimony in connection with element 18.5.d. Pet. 27–28. Instead, for element 18.5.d, the Petition includes a statement that Ideses “discloses” element 18.5.d and quotes four sentences of Ideses. Id. Additionally, Exhibits 1028 and 1029 are not raised anywhere in the Petition. Id. at 2 (not including either Exhibits 1028 or 1029 in the unpatentability grounds), 11– 18 (providing overviews of only Ideses and Sharma), 18–31, 42, 48 (setting forth an element-by-element analysis based on the teachings of only Ideses). To the extent Petitioner intends to rely on Exhibits 1028 and 1029 to remedy the deficiencies in Ideses, Petitioner’s analysis in that regard needed to be set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). Also, although Dr. Subrahmanian testifies regarding research for identifying the best subset of features from a larger set of features and adding features to a given set of features, based on Exhibits 1028 and 1029 that research relates to generating classifiers. See Ex. 1028, 182 (describing “feature reduction phase” of the experiment), 183 (describing subsequent “classification stage”); Ex. 1029, 5–6 (describing that feature extraction “was performed,” the classifier was “optimized”, and then the classifier was “run on the independent test data for analysis”). Petitioner has not shown sufficiently for institution that Ideses teaches or suggests “wherein one or more features of the feature vector are selectively turned on or off” subsequent to “generating a feature vector . . . using a classifier,” as recited in each challenged claim. Dr. Subrahmanian does not testify regarding any research or work involving identifying the best subset of features or adding new features to a given suite of features during the classification stage. Also, neither the Petition nor Dr. Subrahmanian’s testimony includes a reason to modify the teachings of Ideses to address element 18.5.d. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 164–168; Pet. 2, 11–18, 18–31, 42, 48. We, therefore, find that Dr. Subrahmanian’s testimony does not remedy the deficiencies discussed with respect to arguments in the Petition regarding Ideses.” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Considering the subject matter of the ’869 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for an ordinary level of skill. Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’869 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.5” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,409,869
• Sophos Ltd. / Sophos Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · PGR2023-00031 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable over the asserted obviousness or indefiniteness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. A post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’869 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 16). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 33. Considering the subject matter of the ’869 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for an ordinary level of skill, except we decline to adopt “at least” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification of the ’869 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the claims are directed to the classification stage, as they require extracting “a plurality of static data points” from an executable file and “generating a feature vector from [that] plurality of static data points using a classifier” (emphasis added). The claims also recite that the classifier has been “trained to classify” (emphasis added). Further, the claims recite that “features of the feature vector” are selectively turned on or off, indicating that the feature vector has been generated. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Ideses teaches or suggests a classification method in which one or more features of a feature vector generated from a plurality of static data points are selectively turned on or off based on the value of the static data point. As explained in the summary of Ideses above, Ideses describes “methods and systems for generating classifiers” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 2) in which “extracted features [may be] identified for pruning to generate the group of classifying features,” and “the selection [may be] based on identifying a classification effectiveness rank for each of the features of the training software applications” or “based on identifying resource requirements for each of the features of the training software applications.” See id. ¶¶ 98, 99. “[T]he group of classifying features [may be] selected based on the significance of the extracted features,” such that “[s]ignificant features, such as those that have a large effect on the classification outcomes, may be retained” and “[i]nsignificant features, such as those that have a small, negligible or no effect on classification outcome may be pruned.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 106. Petitioner argues that “Ideses explains that in the method depicted in Figure 1, ‘[t]he full feature list is optionally selectively pruned,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned off’ as required by [1.e],” and “[f]urther, ‘each feature of the group is selected from-the-ground-up; added to the group as opposed to removed from or retained within a larger group,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned on’ as required by [1.e].” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 71). Petitioner also argues element 1.e is taught by Ideses’s “approaches to pruning insignificant features,” which Petitioner argues are “to selectively includ[e]/exclud[e] features based on whether a feature coefficient ‘is within a predetermined range’ as required” by element 1.e. Id. at 34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 109–110). But all of the selection and pruning described in Ideses concerns the” slip op. at 22

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the claims are directed to the classification stage, as they require extracting “a plurality of static data points” from an executable file and “generating a feature vector from [that] plurality of static data points using a classifier” (emphasis added). The claims also recite that the classifier has been “trained to classify” (emphasis added). Further, the claims recite that “features of the feature vector” are selectively turned on or off, indicating that the feature vector has been generated. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Ideses teaches or suggests a classification method in which one or more features of a feature vector generated from a plurality of static data points are selectively turned on or off based on the value of the static data point. As explained in the summary of Ideses above, Ideses describes “methods and systems for generating classifiers” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 2) in which “extracted features [may be] identified for pruning to generate the group of classifying features,” and “the selection [may be] based on identifying a classification effectiveness rank for each of the features of the training software applications” or “based on identifying resource requirements for each of the features of the training software applications.” See id. ¶¶ 98, 99. “[T]he group of classifying features [may be] selected based on the significance of the extracted features,” such that “[s]ignificant features, such as those that have a large effect on the classification outcomes, may be retained” and “[i]nsignificant features, such as those that have a small, negligible or no effect on classification outcome may be pruned.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 106. Petitioner argues that “Ideses explains that in the method depicted in Figure 1, ‘[t]he full feature list is optionally selectively pruned,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned off’ as required by [1.e],” and “[f]urther, ‘each feature of the group is selected from-the-ground-up; added to the group as opposed to removed from or retained within a larger group,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned on’ as required by [1.e].” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 71). Petitioner also argues element 1.e is taught by Ideses’s “approaches to pruning insignificant features,” which Petitioner argues are “to selectively includ[e]/exclud[e] features based on whether a feature coefficient ‘is within a predetermined range’ as required” by element 1.e. Id. at 34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 109–110). But all of the selection and pruning described in Ideses concerns the” slip op. at 22

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,409,869
• Forcepoint LLC v. Open Text Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00784 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–13, 15, 16, and 18 were obvious over either asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “degree in computer science or a closely related field and at least two years of experience in the field of computer and network security,” where “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–25). Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art instead would have had “a bachelor’s degree in an accredited program of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, or a similar discipline, and have [had] 2–3 years of practical work experience in the general fields of electrical engineering, computer science, networking, communications, and/or device and network security,” where “[m]ore advanced degrees and/or training in a related discipline can compensate for shorter work experience.” Prelim. Resp. 28; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 50. The parties’ proposed definitions have only minor differences (e.g., at least two years of work experience versus 2–3 years). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except that we eliminate the term “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of education and practical experience. We note, however, that our conclusions herein would be the same regardless of which party’s definition is used.” slip op. at 8

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

    “(emphasis added)). We recognize that “[d]ifferent claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.” SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns, 820 F.3d 419, 431 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. The challenged claims recite “a plurality of factors” that includes “security history” in a list with the “legitimacy” and “behavior” factors. Each of “security history,” “legitimacy,” and “behavior” are different words. We discern nothing in the claim language suggesting that the presumption that these different words carry different meanings is overcome.” slip op. at 10

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

    “495’s list of criteria relied on by Petitioner includes “historical data associated with the IP address of the URL host” in a list of “information” that Hubbard-495’s reputation scoring module uses to generate scores. Ex. 1004, 18:58–19:22. We find that Petitioner’s argument that “Hubbard- 495 explains that this ‘historical data’ could include historical security data,” such as HTTPS certificate details, active content, and a fingerprint (Pet. 25) is not consistent with the description in Hubbard-495. Hubbard-495 merely describes “historical data associated with the IP address of the URL host” in a list of information, without indicating that any other information in that list comprises “historical data.” Ex. 1004, 18:58–19:22. We also agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 38) that the phrase “historical data associated with the IP address of the URL host” (Ex. 1004, 19:3–4) does not indicate that the data relates to security events and Petitioner does not identify disclosure in Hubbard-495 that remedies the deficiency.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,438,386
• Forcepoint LLC v. Open Text Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2023 · IPR2023-00786 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable over the asserted §103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary 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.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, 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 argues that at the time of the ’928 patent (October 2011), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a four-year undergraduate degree in computer science or a closely related field and at least two years of experience in the field of computer and network security,” where “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–29). Patent had “a bachelor’s degree in an accredited program of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, or a similar discipline, and have [had] 2–3 years of practical work experience in the general fields of electrical engineering, computer science, networking, communications, and/or device and network security,” where “[m]ore advanced degrees and/or training in a related discipline can compensate for shorter work experience.” Prelim. Resp. 28; see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 49–51. The parties’ proposed definitions have only minor differences (e.g., at least two years of work experience versus 2–3 years). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except that we eliminate the term “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of education and practical experience. We note, however, that our conclusions herein would be the same regardless of which party’s definition is used.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “potentially malicious “content” that is requested. Limitations [1A]–[1C], for example, recite intercepting a “request” from a web browser, determining whether the “request” is associated with known malicious “content,” and blocking the “request” when it is so associated. Limitations [1D]–[1I] then similarly recite, when the “request” is not so associated, sending the “request” to one or more web servers, receiving web “content” “in response to [that] request,” processing the received web “content” to create a modified version of a web page, and providing that modified version of the web page to the web browser application for rendering and display. Thus, the “request” in claim 1 is a request for “content,” which is what the one or more web servers return. Dependent claims 4 and 12 likewise recite determining “whether a request for the web content from the web browser application is a first request.” Patent Owner argues, and we agree, that Petitioner’s reading of the claim language “obfuscates the difference between (i) determining whether a request from a web browser is server-directed malware (as disclosed in Step 400 of Devarajan) and” slip op. at 11

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

    “for limitation [1B]. As explained above, we interpret the limitation to not encompass determining whether the request itself is malicious. See supra Section II.C. Devarajan discloses two sets of actions: a first set, prior to receiving content from the hosting server, designed to protect the hosting server from server-directed malware transmitted by the client (Steps 400 and 1000–1050 in Figure 10), and a second set, after content has been received, designed to protect the client from client-directed malware transmitted by 88–118 (describing the “bi-directional” detection and removal of malware), Figs. 9–10; see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–60, 71–72. Step 400 is part of the first set. At Step 400, before transmitting the client’s request for content from the website, server 108 “determin[es] whether an event associated with the client 900 or its first network resource address 901 matches one or more of a plurality of event signatures 102 in one or more network security device 100 communicatively coupled to the network 101.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 96, 111. Specifically, server 108 examines the request to identify characters (i.e., signatures) that match strings indicative of malicious activity (e.g., a DDoS attack signature or an SQL injection attack signature). Id. ¶¶ 41, 45–48. If a match is found, the request is blocked from reaching hosting server 903 (Step 1010); otherwise, the request is transmitted (Step 1050). Id. ¶¶ 98, 111–112. As Patent Owner correctly points out, Devarajan is entirely silent as to what content client 900 is requesting from website 902 at this stage. See Prelim. Resp. 39; Ex. 2001 ¶ 72. Again, Step 400 looks only at the request from the client (i.e., “an event associated with the client 900 or its first network resource address 901” in Petitioner’s view) to determine whether the request itself is malicious as to the hosting server. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 96, 111. Step 400 does not determine whether content associated with the request might be malicious. See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Step 400 discloses limitation [1B].” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,025,928
• Sophos Ltd. / Sophos Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00731 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Li was prior art, defeating the reasonable-likelihood showing for all challenged claims and grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’243 patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “therefore, “the Board [will] not consider[] these hyperlinked webpages as evidence in [this] proceeding[].” Ex. 3001. As a result, Dr. Hall-Ellis’s declaration does not cite any supporting evidence of record in this proceeding (other than Li itself, Ex. 1005). Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 40–43. The declaration thus “does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based” and is therefore “entitled to little or no weight.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). For this reason alone, we find that Petitioner has failed to establish the public accessibility of Li.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Our rules require that “[a]ll evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit,” and that “[e]ach exhibit must be filed with the first document in which it is cited except as the Board may otherwise order.” Id. §§ 42.63(a), 42.6(c). Despite Petitioner not filing the webpage links as exhibits with Exhibit 1009, we gave Petitioner the opportunity to correct this error and ordered Petitioner to file late copies of these webpage links as exhibits by September 22, 2023. See Ex. 3001 (email order); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c) (“except as the Board may otherwise order”). Petitioner declined to do so, instead choosing to request authorization to file a Motion to Dismiss, which we authorized in an order mailed October 2, 2023 (Paper 17).7 In our email order, we informed Petitioner that failure to file the webpage links as exhibits would result in the Board not considering the webpage links as evidence in these proceedings. Ex. 3001. Our order authorizing filing of the Motion to Dismiss did not obviate Petitioner’s responsibility to file copies of the webpage links as exhibits. See id.; Paper 17.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner provides a slightly different definition of the level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 22–23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–43). We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’243 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this decision. Our decision would not have changed had we adopted Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,201,243
• Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh RathodInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 27, 2022 · DER2022-00002 · APJ Michael R Zecher · DER · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Tencent did not make a sufficient showing that the named inventors conceived the invention allegedly communicated to Rathod.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “that the standards for instituting a derivation proceeding are met, the Director may institute a derivation proceeding.” 35 U.S.C. § 135(a)(1). We have authority to institute a derivation proceeding on behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R. § 42.408(a). The threshold showing for institution of a derivation proceeding is whether the petition demonstrates substantial evidence that, if unrebutted, would support a determination of derivation. See 35 U.S.C. § 135(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(c).1 Once a derivation proceeding has been instituted, the standard of proof for establishing that a challenged claim constitutes a derived invention is by a preponderance of the evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “is devoid of any explanation of the circumstances surrounding conception of the invention by the three named inventors of the ’371 application. Most notably, Tencent does not provide supporting testimony from any of the three named inventors or, for that matter, from any other parties that could corroborate the alleged conception. Indeed, the word “conception” does not appear in Tencent’s Petition at all. See Pet. Put simply, Tencent fails to provide any meaningful information regarding the work done by each of the three named inventors that resulted in conception of the invention covered by the pending claims of the ’371 application. Absent some evidence in the record, such as testimony from the three named inventors together with corroborating evidence showing there was formation in the mind of the named inventors of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, Tencent has not demonstrated prior conception.6 To the extent Tencent expects us to scour the preliminary record to unearth supporting evidence of prior conception, we decline to do so. It is well-settled that Tencent is “master of its complaint.” SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018). We are constrained by the arguments and evidence presented and developed in Tencent’s Petition, and we are not” slip op. at 13

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached

    “6 We recognize that Tencent contends that the ’265 patent and the three applications in its priority chain lack sufficient written description support for the claimed invention. Pet. 17–28. We need not reach Tencent’s arguments that the three applications in the priority chain of the ’265 patent lack sufficient written description support for the claimed invention because, as we explain above, Tencent does not demonstrate that the named inventors in the ’371 application conceived, at any time, the inventions purportedly communicated to Mr. Rathod.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyNot reached

    “is devoid of any explanation of the circumstances surrounding conception of the invention by the three named inventors of the ’371 application. Most notably, Tencent does not provide supporting testimony from any of the three named inventors or, for that matter, from any other parties that could corroborate the alleged conception. Indeed, the word “conception” does not appear in Tencent’s Petition at all. See Pet. Put simply, Tencent fails to provide any meaningful information regarding the work done by each of the three named inventors that resulted in conception of the invention covered by the pending claims of the ’371 application. Absent some evidence in the record, such as testimony from the three named inventors together with corroborating evidence showing there was formation in the mind of the named inventors of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, Tencent has not demonstrated prior conception.6” slip op. at 13

  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,990,265

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.