• 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
• 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
• Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP v. Xcential Corp.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · DER2022-00004 · APJ Justin T Arbes · DER · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that Respondent’s claims 1–5 were the same or substantially the same as the allegedly disclosed invention.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that claims 1–5 of Respondent’s ’233 application are the same or substantially the same as the invention allegedly disclosed to Respondent. Consequently, Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing of derivation as to Respondent’s claims 1–5 to warrant institution of this proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 135(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(b)(3)(i). III. CONCLUSION Based on the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner, substantial evidence, unrebutted, does not support a conclusion that the claims of Respondent’s ’233 application constitute derived inventions. Therefore, we do not institute a derivation proceeding.” slip op. at 29

  • BurdenDenied

    “same or substantially the same as (i.e., patentably indistinct from) the invention allegedly disclosed to Respondent. As an initial matter, we note that the Petition does not specifically compare the allegedly disclosed invention as a whole to Respondent’s claim 1 and explain “why” they are the same or substantially the same. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(b)(3)(i). Rather, Petitioner argues that Mr. Agnello conceived and communicated certain general concepts, then cites certain groups of claim limitations for each concept (without tying such arguments to the particular language of claim 1). See Pet. 34–39 (addressing the preamble of claim 1), 39–41 (grouping limitations [a] and [b] under the general concept of “creating a ‘snapshot document’ including at ‘least one provision of law to be changed’”), 42–46 (grouping limitations [c]–[f] as “known concepts of ‘receiving changes to the snapshot document’ and ‘creating an updated snapshot document’”), 46–50 (grouping limitations [i]–[l] as “known concepts of ‘analyzing the updated snapshot document’”), 50–56 (grouping limitations [n]–[q] under the general concept of “analyzing the XML changes document to generate a bill representation”).5 Petitioner, in its supplemental paper, also ambiguously identifies 37 pages of the Petition as showing where it articulated the invention allegedly disclosed to Respondent. See Supp. 1–2 (citing Pet. 1, 2, 6, 9–13, 17–20, 28, 29, 33–47, 49–55, 58). To determine whether Petitioner has satisfied the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(b)(3)(i), we consider the differences between Respondent’s claim 1 and the invention allegedly disclosed to Respondent, and then assess the arguments in the Petition, including those at the cited pages, to determine whether, notwithstanding those differences, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the two are patentably indistinct.6” slip op. at 19

  None
  Patents in suitUS 11,989,794
• Sophos Ltd. / Sophos Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00732 · 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 meritsDenied

    “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 ’932 patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • 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).8 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. 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 ’932 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

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “reasonable likelihood that Li was publicly accessible before the priority date of the ’932 patent. In particular, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Li “has been disseminated” or that Li was “otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” See SRI, 511 F.3d at 1194. As an initial matter, Li is undated. We can find no indication anywhere in Li itself evidencing a timeframe in which it might have been published, not even a copyright date. There is also no indication in Li of any journal or website where Li may have been published. Dr. Hall-Ellis testifies that Li “appears beginning on page 12” of, purportedly, a record of the 12th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems: Modeling and Analysis, but the copy of Li submitted by Petitioner starts on page “1” and includes no further pages describing any conference. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 40; Ex. 1005, 1. Ultimately, there is nothing in the text of Li itself to distinguish Li from a draft paper that was never published. Petitioner submits no evidence that Li was disseminated at or around the time of the 12th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems: Modeling and Analysis. See Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1381. Dr. Hall-Ellis testifies that Li was “presented” at the conference but submits no evidence in support of this assertion. Ex. 1009 ¶ 43. For example, Dr. Hall-Ellis does not address “whether the copies were freely distributed to interested members of the public” or whether there was a “legal obligation of confidentiality” when distributing any copies, among other factors. See Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1381. Absent any such evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown dissemination of Li at or around the time of the conference, or at any other time before the ’932 patent’s asserted priority date. Petitioner also does not sufficiently establish that Li was “otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” See SRI Int’l, 511 F.3d at 1194. Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony is deficient because her testimony does not establish that Li was likely made available to the public before the critical date of the challenged patent. See Hulu, Paper 29 at 16. For example, Dr. Hall-Ellis does not claim personal knowledge of when Li was first published, was unclear as to when she obtained Li from the OPERA digital repository, and unpersuasively asserts that Li “is” available from other digital repositories. See Prelim. Resp. 32–33; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 40–41. Whether Li “is” available online now does not establish that Li was publicly accessible in the relevant timeframe, i.e., 17 years earlier, prior to the April 20, 2006 priority date of the ’932 patent. Further, Dr. Hall-Ellis presents no persuasive evidence that the identified digital repositories hosted Li in the relevant timeframe. Patent Owner persuasively asserts that ResearchGate was established in 2008, after the priority date, and that Google Scholar’s page referencing Li links to ResearchGate. Prelim. Resp. 33–34 (citing Ex. 2014 (“We started ResearchGate in 2008 . . . .”); Ex. 1009 ¶ 41; see also id. n.23 (Google Scholar link, showing “[PDF] from researchgate.net”). Accordingly, these repositories do not support Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony that Li was publicly available in the relevant timeframe, before April 20, 2006. Dr. Hall-Ellis’s reliance on the CiteSeer repository is also unavailing because Dr. Hall- Ellis’s link to CiteSeer directly opens a PDF file of Li and does not provide any evidence showing that CiteSeer hosted Li in the relevant timeframe. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 41 n.24.” slip op. at 15

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,719,932
• 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
• Arconic Technologies LLC v. Novelis Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · May 2, 2022 · DER2018-00004 · APJ James T Moore · DER · Rehearing

  The Board denied Arconic’s rehearing request, leaving in place denial of institution because it had not shown sufficiently corroborated prior conception for derivation.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “documents cited by Petitioner for each of the six steps of claim 22 and explained why they were insufficient to corroborate Mr. Marinelli’s testimony. Id. at 16–22. We concluded that “[s]ubstantial evidence does not support Petitioner’s assertion that its inventors conceived of the inventions allegedly communicated to Respondent’s inventors (i.e., the six-step processes of each of Respondent’s claims)” and denied institution of a derivation proceeding. Id. at 23.” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “[w]e are not informed as to which of Mr. Marinelli, Mr. Dennis, and Mr. Shoemaker conceived what portions of the invention of claim 22 or how the three individuals jointly conceived of the recited process. Petitioner provides no explanation as to what the contributions of each individual were (other than that they were all “involved” in the development of the A951 process), the circumstances surrounding those contributions, or even when conception occurred. Indeed, Mr. Marinelli testifies that Petitioner began development of chromium-free aluminum pretreatments that provided the same performance characteristics of a chromate conversion coating in 1992 and that the development work spanned “the next two decades,” but does not explain when during that time he conceived of the process of claim 22 with Mr. Dennis and Mr. Shoemaker. Again, there is no meaningful information provided about what work was done by whom or the circumstances under which the claimed invention was conceived, other than a general assertion that it was Petitioner undertaking the work.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted in part

    “a trial, a party may file a motion to expunge confidential information from the record.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.56. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 21–22, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“Trial Practice Guide”), provides: Confidential information that is subject to a protective order ordinarily would become public 45 days after denial of a petition to institute a trial or 45 days after final judgment in a trial. There is an expectation that information will be made public where the existence of the information is referred to in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute a review or is identified in a final written decision following a trial. A party seeking to maintain the confidentiality of information, however, may file a motion to” slip op. at 13

  None
  Patents in suitUS 11,807,942
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00717 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims: Grounds 1–3, 6, and 7 failed the institution threshold, and Grounds 4 and 5 were denied under § 325(d).

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “the list of cited references of the ’203 Patent. Ex. 1001, 2; Ex. 1002, 430. Because the same reference was cited during prosecution, there is no material difference between Christensen and the prior art involved during examination. Given these facts, we need not further evaluate factor (b), whether Christensen is cumulative, nor factor (d), the extent of overlap in arguments regarding Christensen. Thus, we find that the same reference was previously presented to the Office, and we move on to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 11

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

    “unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the Petition does not establish there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in establishing at least one of Challenged Claims of the ’203 Patent as unpatentable under certain grounds presented in the Petition, and that the remaining asserted grounds should be denied pursuant to our delegated discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review as to any of the challenged claims of the ’203 Patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have had at least a B.S. in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and three years of experience working in the communications- or Internet-related industries” and that “[m]ore education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” C. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 43). Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill appears to be generally consistent with the subject matter of the ’203 Patent. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner that the recited database system should be given no patentable weight. The Federal Circuit explains that [p]roduct-by-process claims are not specifically discussed in the patent statute. The practice and governing law have developed in response to the need to enable an applicant to claim an otherwise patentable product that resists definition by other than the process by which it is made. For this reason, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). With respect to patentability, “[i]f the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” Id. The Federal Circuit has clearly stated that “[i]n determining validity of a product-by-process claim, the focus is on the product and not the process of making it.” Purdue Pharma, 811 F.3d at 1354 (quoting Greenliant Sys., Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). “That is because of the . . . longstanding rule that an old product is not patentable even if it is made by a new process.” Id. Generally, therefore, the recited process steps in a product-by-process claim are not accorded patentable weight. See In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, 881 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he Board typically will not accord patentable weight to a process limitation in a product-by-process claim.”) (citing Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,200,203
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00719 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Levy grounds and § 325(d) warranted denial of the Christensen ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “example, claim 5 recites “data that identifies a source of the data stream,” “third party encoded data,” “analysis data,” “identifying data,” and “additional data.” Ex. 1001, 34:47–35:11. Petitioner relies on Levy’s broadcaster ID as both (1) “data that identifies a source of the data stream” because it identifies the broadcaster and (2) “third party encoded data” because it originates from outside of Levy’s user device and is embedded with the broadcast. See Pet. 49. Petitioner, however, does not explain whether the Specification of the ’806 patent indicates that “data that identifies a source of the data stream” and the “third party encoded data” can refer to the same data. See id. at 48–49. Petitioner also does not explain further if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the asserted “data that identifies a source of the data stream” and the “third party encoded data” can be the same data. See id. Additionally, Petitioner argues that “Levy teaches finding, extracting, and decoding ‘identifiers’—including a ‘broadcaster ID.’” Pet. 48–49. Claim 5 requires “determining . . . data that identifies a source of the data stream through analysis of said data stream” and “extracting at least third party encoded data obtained from the data stream.” Ex. 1001, 34:47–35:11. By reciting another step for another type of data, claim 5 indicates by its own words that “third party data” has some difference with “data that identifies a source of the data stream.” See id.; see also Pet. 5 (arguing that “[t]erms not expressly construed should be given their plain and ordinary meaning”). “broadcaster ID” identifies the source, is encoded, and can originate from a third party, the arguments presented in the Petition and the cited evidence do not sufficiently persuade us that Levy’s finding, extracting, and decoding the broadcaster ID discloses, or that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand discloses, both the steps of “determining, using at least one processor, data that identifies a source of the data stream obtained through analysis of said data stream” and “extracting at least third party encoded data obtained from the data stream.” See Pet. 48–49; Ex. 1001, 34:47–58. The presented arguments and cited evidence may be sufficient for one step, but not both. Moreover, even if one of ordinary skill in the art understood that Levy’s broadcaster ID could be both “data that identifies a source of the data stream” and “third party encoded data,” Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently how Levy analyzes the asserted third party code to generate analysis data that includes at least an identifying data, as required by claim 5. The relied-upon portions of Levy do not disclose analyzing the broadcaster ID (i.e., the alleged third party encoded data). Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 13–15, 22, 26, 55, 56, 65, 68, Fig. 1. Petitioner does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would understand forwarding broadcaster ID with context information to a server discloses the step of “analyzing” third party encoded data. See Pet. 50–53. Petitioner also does not provide an interpretation of “analyzing” that supports the argument. See id. at 5–6, 50–53; see also Prelim. Resp. 38–39 (responding that Petitioner’s anticipation challenges lack particularity).” slip op. at 17

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “proceeding.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), in determining whether to institute an inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In evaluating the exercise of discretion to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying the two-part framework, we consider several non- exclusive factors, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”). Factors (a), (b), and (d) of the Becton, Dickinson factors relate to whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a B.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or a related field), and approximately three years of experience working in the communications- or Internet-related industries, or, alternatively, an advanced degree (such as a master’s degree) in computer science or electrical engineering (or a related field).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). Petitioner also argues that “more education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). Patent Owner neither addresses Petitioner’s” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner proposes an interpretation for “media segment” with citations to the record. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:18–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42, 43). Patent Owner provides a response. Prelim. Resp. 53–54. At this stage, because determining whether Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing does not depend on a particular interpretation for any claim term, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy);” slip op. at 10

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,294,806
• Universal Imaging Industries, LLC v. Lexmark International, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · May 4, 2020 · IPR2019-01383 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution for claims 1–22, finding no reasonable likelihood on four grounds and denying the Adkins ground under § 325(d).

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “testimony because we mistakenly found it to rely on unsupported inherency theories. Req. Reh’g 9–10. According to Petitioner, “Dr. Direen’s Declaration does not rely on any inherency theories.” Id. As pointed out in the Decision, however, Dr. Direen, in multiple instances, clearly bases his testimony on alleged “inherent device operation,” rather than express disclosure in Adkins. See Dec. 20; Ex. 1002, App. 1002-C, 8–18, 23, 26–27, 32, 36. We did not misapprehend his testimony. We maintain our conclusions that Petitioner did not show Examiner error and that Dr. Direen’s testimony did not warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments presented during prosecution. See Dec. 19–20. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding factors (e) and (f). Petitioner has not shown that we abused our discretion in weighing the Becton, Dickinson factors and denying institution as to the asserted ground based on Adkins under § 325(d). Our evaluation of the Becton, Dickinson factors in the Decision demonstrates that our denial of institution of this ground was warranted under the two-part framework of Advanced Bionics, which was recently designated precedential, because the same art (Adkins) previously was presented to the Office and Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”).1 With respect to the first issue, previously “presented” art includes, among other things, “art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent.” Id. at 7–8. With respect to the second issue, institution generally will be denied if a “petitioner fails to make a showing of material error,” and “[i]f reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 3

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

    “III. ANALYSIS Petitioner asserted five grounds of unpatentability in its Petition. See Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 3; Dec. 7. In the Decision, we determined that Petitioner had not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to four of those grounds. Dec. 21–41. As to the fifth asserted ground—alleged obviousness of claims 1–22 of the ’079 patent over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0306431 A1 (Ex. 1006, “Adkins”)—we found that the evidence weighed in favor of exercising our discretion and denying institution of review as to the ground under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Dec. 21, 41. Petitioner in its Request for Rehearing does not dispute our determination as to the four asserted grounds for which we found no reasonable likelihood of prevailing, and instead only disputes our conclusion as to the ground based on Adkins. Req. Reh’g 1 & n.1.” slip op. at 2

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “overlooked its argument in the Petition regarding claim 1 that the slave device “implements [the] address change functionality upon instruction from the master, no matter how many times the master sends the instruction. With each address change request, the slave will change its address.” Id. at 9 (quoting Pet. 43; citing Ex. 1002, App. 1002-C, 7 (similar testimony from Petitioner’s declarant, Harry Direen, Ph.D., P.E.)). Petitioner, however, does not explain why we should have understood that vague statement to be the detailed arguments it now makes in the Request for Rehearing. Even if the vague statement was sufficient for claim 1, Petitioner states that “[t]he same argument was presented in connection with each of the challenged claims,” but fails to explain how it would apply to claims that further specify the timing and nature of interaction with the master, such as the “substantially immediately following a predetermined event” and “continual series of a plurality of address change requests” limitations in independent claim 7 (which are recited similarly in independent claims 12 and 17). See id. Indeed, Petitioner in its Petition cited only a single paragraph of Adkins as identify in the Petition any “predetermined event” in Adkins. Dec. 19–20. As to Dr. Direen’s similar testimony, we found that it was “entitled to little weight because it consists primarily of quotations from Adkins, many of which are not cited in the Petition.” Id. at 20 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3), 42.65(a)). We see no reason to conclude otherwise now.” slip op. at 9

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,850,079
• Universal Imaging Industries, LLC v. Lexmark International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2020 · IPR2019-01369 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, and § 325(d) also supported denying the claim 10 grounds based solely on Schön and Robb or …

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (for an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”). “Although the KSR test is flexible, the Board ‘must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.’” TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal 3 Additionally, secondary considerations, such as “commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Neither party, however, has presented any such evidence for us to consider. conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); accord In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that “‘conclusory statements’” amount to an “insufficient articulation[] of motivation to combine”; “instead, the finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’” (citation omitted)); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “institute an inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In evaluating whether to exercise our discretion when the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office under section 325(d), we have weighed some common non-exclusive factors, such as: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”).” slip op. at 37

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the ’657 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical and/or computer engineering with training and one or more years of experience in embedded systems including both hardware and embedded software design,” as well as “a working understanding of communication on an electronics bus.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 25–28). Patent Owner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical and/or computer engineering with one or more years of work experience in printer design, including hardware and/or embedded software design for printer applications.” Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–33). The parties’ proposed definitions differ in that Petitioner’s definition requires experience with “embedded systems” and “communication on an electronics bus,” whereas Patent Owner’s definition more specifically requires experience with “printer design.” The Specification of the ’657 patent states that the disclosure relates to “master and slave devices communicating on a shared bus,” and specifically, “addressing schemes to provide security to the system.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 15–19. The claims of the ’657 patent similarly each recite “slave circuitry” for communicating as a “slave device” and an “address generator” generating plural addresses. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’657 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’657 patent and cited prior art, we agree with and apply Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “combine Schön with I2C Spec. Prelim. Resp. 50–54. In particular, Patent Owner argues that Schön already discloses an address format, and neither Schön, I2C Spec, nor the Petition identifies any disadvantages with Schön’s address format that would have been improved by I2C Spec’s address format. Id. at 52. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have replaced Schön’s exemplary 8-bit address format, which allows for up to 256 addresses, with I2C Spec’s 7-bit address format with a limited number of variable bits, allowing fewer addresses to be generated in response to an address generation command. Id. at 52–53. Dr. Folkins’s testimony supports Patent Owner’s arguments. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 101, 105‒113. In particular, Dr. Folkins testifies that replacing Schön’s addressing scheme with I2C Spec’s addressing would limit the flexibility of Schön’s addressing. Id. ¶¶ 105‒107. Dr. Folkins further testifies that I2C Spec’s addressing scheme would have caused inefficiencies in Schön’s system because a smaller pool of addresses would lead to more duplicate addresses, causing additional cycles of address generation. Id. ¶¶ 108‒111. We credit Dr. Folkins’s uncontroverted testimony. We recognize that, according to our rules, we “will take into account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). However, in this case, Dr. Folkins’s testimony does not implicate a genuine issue of material fact. Petitioner does not provide any argument or cite to any testimony regarding the advantages or disadvantages of using I2C Spec’s addressing scheme in place of Schön’s. See Pet. 15‒21. Petitioner merely asserts, without further explanation, that Schön teaches “generating slave addresses,” I2C Spec teaches one “addressing format[],” and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the latter. Id. at 16. Dr. Direen’s testimony regarding combining the teachings of Schön and I2C Spec also makes no mention of advantages or disadvantages of replacing Schön’s addressing scheme with I2C Spec’s addressing scheme. See Ex. 1002, App. 1002-A, 7 (concluding that “[i]t would be natural for a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to combine the teaching of the I2C standard with [Schön’s] teachings as they both relate to similar computer bus systems,” without addressing advantages or disadvantages of the addressing schemes).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,386,657

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.