• Innolux Corporation v. Phenix Longhorn LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00044 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition violated Rule 42.104(b)(3) and did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5, and 6 were unpatentable as obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not identified corresponding structure for performing the recited functions of “optimizing . . . gamma reference voltage levels using means for executing a predetermined algorithm according to a predetermined criteria and data sensed by . . . at least one sensor, wherein said means for executing said predetermined algorithm is separate from [a] display to achieve [a] desired gamma curve” as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Because Petitioner has not provided constructions, either rebutting the presumption that “means for executing” is a means-plus-function term, or identifying corresponding structure if it is a means-plus-function term, Petitioner has violated Rule 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) “would have had at least a bachelor of science degree in physics, electrical engineering, or the equivalent thereof and three (3) years of experience in circuit design or display technologies.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). According to Petitioner “[s]uch a POSA would have had knowledge of integrated circuits, gamma correction, and storage of gamma correction voltage values within memory, and would have understood how to search available literature for relevant publications.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition for the purposes of the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 2. 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. Pet. 12. This assessment is consistent with the ’788 Patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not identified corresponding structure for performing the recited functions of “optimizing . . . gamma reference voltage levels using means for executing a predetermined algorithm according to a predetermined criteria and data sensed by . . . at least one sensor, wherein said means for executing said predetermined algorithm is separate from [a] display to achieve [a] desired gamma curve” as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Because Petitioner has not provided constructions, either rebutting the presumption that “means for executing” is a means-plus-function term, or identifying corresponding structure if it is a means-plus-function term, Petitioner has violated Rule 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “and 5 recites “means for executing.” Ex. 1001, 7:36–40, 8:35–37. The use of the term “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments (Prelim. Resp. 36–39), the Petition does not address the presumption and, more specifically, the Petition does not provide any argument or evidence as to why the presumption is rebutted. Furthermore, even if we were to consider Petitioner’s newly presented argument that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of ‘means for executing a predetermined algorithm . . . ’ connotes a general-purpose processor, which is understood as structure sufficient to perform the function” (Pet. Reply 5), such argument is not persuasive as it is not supported by evidence earlier presented in the Petition or otherwise. Furthermore, even if the plain and ordinary meaning of means for executing a predetermined algorithm were a general-purpose processor, for a computer implemented means-plus-function term the corresponding structure must be the specific algorithm implemented by the processor as argued by Petitioner. Pet. Reply 6.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,557,788
• Tableau Software, LLC v. Icharts LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01389 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–4 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of establishing unpatentability under any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’000 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We construe a 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) (2019); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party proposes construing any claim term. Pet. 6; Prelim. Resp. 36. Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions of any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “3 The parties do not dispute that a skilled artisan “would have had a B.S. degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent experience relating to computing, as well as two to three additional years of academic or industry experience related to web application development and data visualization services.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 85); Prelim. Resp. 35– 36. 4 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “connotes interactivity, and does not explain why a “Data Animation Effect” would be interactive.6 These aspects of Figure 53 do not appear to show interactivity. Thus, the issue is whether selecting a choice other than “Hide” for “Scroll buttons” in box 710 of Figure 53 adds to chart 840, once published, a feature that allows a user to interact with that chart via scrolling, or whether “Scroll buttons” refers to some other feature of the configuration process (such as the scroll buttons shown in Figure 53 for scrolling through the various charts in the layout). Both experts provide conclusory testimony stating how they view Figure 53. Ex. 1003 ¶ 181 (“For example, Figure 53 of Rostoker shows the ‘Configure Chart View’ toolbar, which includes multiple ‘interactive’ features, such as making the chart ‘Selectable’ (suggesting interactivity using an input device such as a mouse), including ‘Scroll buttons’ to scroll the chart, and adding ‘Data Animation[s].’”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 141 (“Schmandt relies on the ‘Configure Chart View’ toolbar of FIG. 53 of Rostoker, but he is confusing the configuration step 330 of Rostoker with the end result.”). Petitioner invites us to speculate as to the behavior of features that are depicted in Figure 53 but otherwise are not described in any meaningful detail by Rostoker. We conclude that this is insufficient to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,520,000
• Tableau Software, LLC v. Icharts LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01388 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–18 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’595 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We construe a 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” slip op. at 6

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. At most, Jou teaches that it was known to interact with charts in a Windows environment or a browser window. Ex. 1007 ¶ 34. But Rostoker already teaches that a user could interact with a chart, via a graphical user interface in a web browser, while configuring the chart. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67–75. Petitioner does not explain persuasively why a skilled artisan, per the teachings of Jou, would have made Rostoker’s published charts interactive. Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that a skilled artisan “would have been motivated to incorporate Jou’s additional ‘interactive’ features into Rostoker’s system to enable users to better visualize and explore business data,” is not supported by his citations to Jou, at least as to whether a skilled artisan would have modified Rostoker’s published charts. Ex. 1003 ¶ 259 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 8, 9). Petitioner’s argument that Flash and Java could enable interactive features, at most, show that a skilled artisan could have implemented interactive features with Rostoker’s a reason why a skilled artisan would have made these modifications. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))). Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner is likely to show that a skilled artisan would have incorporated Jou’s interactive features into Rostoker to make Rostoker’s published charts interactive.” slip op. at 35

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “client is required for display and usage of an existing QlikView document (.qvw file). While the QlikView Server is responsible for opening, hosting, and calculating the document, the clients are required for user interaction and presenting the document and its objects.” Ex. 1009, 123. Petitioner points to no persuasive evidence that a Java or AJAX object or client executing at a web browser is a website separate from the server that serves the object or client. Mr. Schmandt makes conclusory statements to that effect, but does not state the basis for his testimony. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 338–339. Thus, Mr. Schmandt’s testimony on this point is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (“Dr. Jones does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statement. Thus, the cited declaration testimony is conclusory and support, and is entitled to little weight.”).” slip op. at 44

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,712,595
• PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd. v. Flip Phone Games Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00133 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 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) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2

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

    “For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent necessary, we address the parties’ implicit claim constructions in the context of the arguments on the merits of the Petition.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “an undergraduate degree in game design, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience working with computer gaming systems or software application development,” and that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education or vice versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–72). Petitioner’s recitation of the level of ordinary is consistent with the invention disclosed in the ’089 patent. It is also not disputed by Patent Owner at this time. See Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least” which we change to “about.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “Figure 3 above is an example of the embodiment of Ho showing a wings button, a car, and a hamburger monster in the foreground. Ex. 1004, 5:1–5, Fig. 3. Ho describes how the various interactive information elements are used for game play. See id. at 5:11–38. For example, hamburger monster 56 may be engaged when character 52 fights and successfully slays the hamburger monster, car 58 may be engaged when character 52 enters the car, and “wings” button 54 may be engaged (for example when character 52 wishes to fly) by clicking on icon 54 using a pointer, or by using an enclosure moving between different icons to highlight icon 54 to engage the icon. Id. Because Petitioner has not shown persuasive evidence that a user would not have expected those objects to be ones that the user could interact with, Petitioner has not shown them to be background objects. Petitioner also argues that Ho teaches that activating the interactive information elements “does not disrupt gameplay” and is therefore “outside the primary focus of game play.” Pet. 31–32 (quoting 5:36–38). We do not find that argument persuasive for two reasons. First, we do not see how the fact that activating an element without disrupting game play means the element is in the background. Petitioner and its expert simply make a statement without any explanation. See id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 122. Such conclusory statements are not persuasive. Second, the language in Ho Petitioner relies on is not about the interactive information element, which Petitioner maps to the hotspot. Instead, Ho describes a sub-screen that appears after the user interacts with one of the interactive information elements, namely when the user slays the hamburger monster: “Similarly, making the character 52 slay the hamburger monster 56 may generate a sub-screen showing an advertisement of a chain of fast food restaurants. The sub-screen may also be overlain on the game environment and may not be disruptive to gameplay.” Ex. 1004, 5:35–38. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how a nondisruptive sub-screen that appears after an interaction with an object makes the object a background object.” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,688,089
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Longitude Licensing Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01123 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–4 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’233 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for” a person of ordinary skill. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 17). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 6. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and which is supported by expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Specifically, the Specification of the ’233 patent states: In this manner, the silicon pillars 5 do not necessarily surround the contact plug 31 in ′-shape and it is satisfactory if the silicon pillars 5 are uniformly arranged with respect to the metal contact plug 31, i.e. the maximum interval between the metal contact plug 31 and the silicon pillar 5 is twice or less the minimum interval between the metal contact plug 31 and the silicon pillar 5.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Endoh and Hwang rests on Endoh’s expression of a need to connect common source diffused layer 9 to a common source line above the top of the semiconductor pillars, and because Petitioner has presented no such evidence of a need in Endoh, Petitioner provides no reason to combine Endoh and Hwang to arrive at claim limitation 1.5. Id. at 17–18. We agree with Patent Owner. Endoh does not appear to teach a position of a common source line CSL and, thus, does not express a need for a means, such as a vertical contact plug, to connect common source diffused layer 9 to a common source line CSL above the top of pillar-shaped silicon layer 2. Dr. Lee’s testimony largely repeats the arguments in the Petition and, thus, does not provide any additional persuasive evidence from which we might conclude that Endoh’s device has a common source line CSL above pillar-shaped silicon layer 2, or any evidence that placement of a common source line CSL above pillar-shaped silicon layer 2 would have been obvious. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–68, 97–100, 103–105. Thus, we are not persuaded that” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,379,233
• Uv Engineering Solutions LLC v. Trojan Technologies Group UlcInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2023 · IPR2023-01015 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5 and 8–24 were unpatentable over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2022).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The primary dispute between the parties is whether the person having ordinary skill in the art works with lamps generally (Petitioner) or works with ultraviolet lamps for fluid treatment systems (Patent Owner). Although the specification of the ’654 patent focuses on ultraviolet lamps for fluid treatment systems (see Ex. 1001, 1:24–2:29), the claims of the patent are not so limited. Rather, the claims broadly claim “lamps” without reciting any field of use. See id. at 6:2–8:24. Because the claims are not limited to ultraviolet lamps or fluid treatment centers, Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill is more consistent with the claims. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed description of the person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Because construction of the disputed claim limitation is not necessary to resolve the controversy, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have “modif[ied] the terminal pins 126, 128, 130, and 132 of Ellner to be angled relative to the longitudinal axis as shown in Titchener so as to create a reliable connection between cables as disclosed in Titchener.” Pet. 12. Petitioner further argues that “[s]uch a modification would be a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., angled connectors 5a and 5b of Titchener) for another (i.e., non-angled terminal pins 126, 128, 130, and 132 of Ellner) to obtain predictable results.” Id. at 12–13. According to Petitioner, the combination of the teachings of Ellner and Titchener result in a lamp in which “each of the first elongate electrical connector (i.e., terminal pin 126, 128 modified to be angled as shown in Titchener) and the second elongate connector (i.e., terminal pin 130, 132 modified to be angled as shown in Titchener) configured to form an oblique angle with respect to the longitudinal axis.” Id. at 13.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,167,654
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. / Beijing Boe Display Technology Co. et al. v. Element Capital Commercial Company Pte. LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00696 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claim 1 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any asserted Inukai-based ground rendered it unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) . The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner proposes that no formal claim constructions are necessary in this proceeding. Pet. 18. Patent Owner agrees. Prelim. Resp. 4. We determine that it is not necessary to construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a related field.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27); Prelim. Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–23). The parties, however, disagree about the work experience one of ordinary skill would have had. Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill would have had “at 1 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design and manufacturing.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). Patent Owner contends that one of ordinary skill would have had “at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of display device technology.” Prelim. Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 21–23). Both parties agree that “[a]dditional education can remedy lack of work experience and vice versa.” Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 5. We note that the ’760 patent and challenged claim concern both display device technology and integrated circuit design for display devices. The ’760 patent and challenged claim do not appear to concern integrated circuit manufacturing processes. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a related field and at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design for display devices. However our decision in this proceeding would not change if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “sufficiently show that Inukai 576 discloses a wiring portion that “crosses” a control line. As noted above, Petitioner acknowledges that the right protrusion’s “full outline is not explicitly shown,” but contends that one of ordinary skill “would have understood or found obvious that the protrusion would have been the same length as the protrusion on the right, due to the ‘endcap rule.’” Pet. 51. However, based on the present record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to provide sufficient support that the “endcap rule” is universally applied. In this regard, we find reasonable Dr. Silzars’s testimony that the “endcap rule” is, “at best, a design generalization which may be used in some applications for semiconductor manufacturing, heavily dependent on what materials are used, what the purpose of the semiconductor [is] and especially the manufacturing process.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 60. Petitioner relies on the Borodovsky patent, but Borodovsky merely describes the general concept that an endcap of a transistor gate may extend some minimum distance beyond an active region so as to ensure that any rounding of the endcap does not occur over the active region. Ex. 1010, 4:21–33; Ex. 2001 ¶ 63; Pet. 52–53. Borodovsky, however, does not suggest how the rule would have been applied to Inukai 576. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 63. Petitioner also does not point to anything in Borodovsky that states that the “endcap rule” requires gate electrodes of the same size or length. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. Borodovsky’s design rule merely requires that the endcap extends at least a minimum length, not an exact length, beyond the active region, and states that “other size up amounts may be used.” Ex. 1010, 9:42–46; Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. Thus, assuming Inukai 576’s protrusions are of different length, as pictured, Petitioner’s evidence does not show persuasively that the shorter protrusion would violate the “endcap rule” merely because it is shorter than the other protrusion. We note that Dr. Liu testifies that one of ordinary skill would “have known that in order to maintain a consistent current voltage characteristic for the double-gate transistors, the two channel portions of the double-gate structure would be made as uniformly identical as possible.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 114. Dr. Liu, however, does not provide any evidence or citation for this statement. Id. Dr. Liu also states that “[t]he endcap rule applies to all gates fabricated in the transistor,” so one of ordinary skill “would have understood that the two gates over transistor 107 have equal length,” and thus “the two protrusions would extend equal distance beyond the semiconductor layer.” Id. Again, however, Dr. Liu does not explain why the “endcap rule” would require or suggest this outcome, particularly because the description of the “endcap rule” merely requires that gates have a certain minimum length beyond the semiconductor layer they intersect, not that the gates be of equal length. Id.” slip op. at 35

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,525,760
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. / Beijing Boe Display Technology Co. et al. v. Element Capital Commercial Company Pte. LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00605 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 7, 9, 14, and 15 would have been obvious over Masuda and Inoue.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review based on the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “show a reasonable likelihood that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Inoue and Masuda as Petitioner proposes, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. First, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s motivation to combine is deficient because it fails to sufficiently account for the differences between the active matrix system of Inoue and the passive matrix system of Masuda. Patent Owner introduces testimony from Dr. Silzars that passive and active matrix displays “differ in their structure and functions”” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artDecided for patent owner

    “Second, Patent Owner argues that Masuda is not analogous art because Masuda and the claimed invention of the ’736 patent are directed towards fundamentally different types of displays. Prelim. Resp. 30–44. Patent Owner asserts that “Masuda is directed to the field of endeavor of passive matrix displays utilizing field emission display technology.” Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 1–2, 34, 42; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 38, 58). According to Patent Owner, “the problem of visual interference caused by horizontal stripes or vertical stripes that is described in Masuda” is “inherent in passive matrix displays due to their low pixel density causing poor display resolution.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 73). This low pixel density, Patent Owner contends, “is related to the fact that, in passive matrix displays, the addition of more rows/columns of pixels means that there is less time to stimulate the pixels because passive matrix displays have no mechanism for storing an image in a row while other rows are being written,” causing the maximum resolution to be “significantly limited.” Id. (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 73). “In contrast,” Patent Owner argues, “active matrix displays include a mechanism for storing an image in a row while other rows are being written, and therefore achieve much greater resolution than passive matrix displays, which avoids the problem mentioned in Masuda.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 73– 74). In contrast to Masuda, Patent Owner argues that the field of endeavor of remaining challenged claims 7 and 9 is “an active matrix display,” and the field of endeavor of remaining challenged claims 14 and15 is “an OLED display.” Prelim. Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 58). Specifically, Patent Owner argues that claim 7 (and claim 9, which depends from claim 7) includes the feature of “the first and second effective optical regions having respective electronic circuits to drive the electro-optical elements provided in the first and second optical regions,” which specifies that the claim includes electronic circuits that are in element forming regions and drive electro optical elements, which is a characteristics of active matrix displays. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 59–60; Ex. 1001, 5:29–35, 6:1–4). Claim 14, according to Patent Owner, includes the feature of “each of the first electrooptical elements and the second electro-optical elements being an electroluminescent element” which indicates that claim 14 (and claim 15 which depends from it) “is directed towards the field of endeavor of an OLED display.” Id. (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 62). Additionally, Patent Owner argues, the general structure and method of operation of passive matrix displays and active matrix displays are substantially different. Id. at 39–42. Furthermore, according to Patent Owner, Masuda is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Prelim. Resp. 42. Patent Owner asserts that “Masuda is directed to the problem of visual interference caused by horizontal stripes or vertical stripes due to differences in luminosity between rows or differences in luminosity between columns,” which is “a problem that occurs specifically in passive matrix displays due to their low pixel density causing poor display resolution.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 21; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 71, 73). In contrast, Patent Owner argues, “the ’736 patent is directed towards the problem of how to reduce image distortions and color irregularities caused by directional viewing variations,” which occur in “active matrix displays in which pixel[] circuits have different shapes and/or pitches in the column and row directions.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:11–34; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 69, 71). Patent Owner further contends that “the problem related to the interference effects of horizontal and vertical stripes of Masuda does not exist in embodiments of the ’736 patent” because “active matrix displays included a mechanism for storing an image in a row while other rows are being written and achieved much greater resolution than passive matrix displays, which avoids the problem mentioned in Masuda.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 73– 74).” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In light of this testimony from Dr. Silzars, Petitioner fails to present sufficient evidence at this stage of the proceeding that of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the proposed combination. Petitioner introduces testimony from Dr. Liu stating that one of ordinary skill “would have understood that Masuda’s specific checkerboard pixel pattern could be useful for many different types of displays,” and that the problem Masuda addresses (difference in luminosity by having more of one color element than another) “is independent of the particular technology used to implement those color elements.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 74; see id. ¶ 83. Dr. Liu also relies on the Kwon patent that uses a similar arrangement in a “plasma display device.” Id. ¶ 75. Dr. Liu further testifies that, because “Inoue does not restrict how color forming pixels must be laid out,” one of ordinary skill implementing Inoue “would have been motivated to look for complementary techniques to further reduce brightness variation,” such as the one disclosed in Masuda. Id. ¶ 79; see id. ¶ 81. Dr. Liu, however, fails to present sufficient testimony that the combined system would have effectively reduced Inoue’s luminosity differences, which are described as being due to variations of threshold voltages of the pixel unit drive transistors rather than the brightness variations resulting from differences in pixel colors which Masuda identifies. As noted above, Patent Owner introduces detailed evidence from Dr. Silzars explaining the many technical differences between passive and active matrix display devices, and why Masuda’s solution would not have been applicable to Inoue. Petitioner does not introduce contrary evidence on this point. Additionally, the fact that the Kwon reference discloses the use of a similar checkerboard pixel pattern in a plasma device does not show that such a pattern would have been advantageous in an active matrix device, or how one of ordinary skill would have implemented such an arrangement in Inoue’s system. For similar reasons, we also agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Silzars that Petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Inoue’s active matrix display with the Masuda’s solution for a passive matrix device.” slip op. at 31

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,259,736
• Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00593 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 22–62 were unpatentable under the asserted §103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 39; see also id. at 45–46 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt.” slip op. at 26

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner

    “E. Real Parties in Interest Petitioner identifies Google LLC and YouTube, LLC as real parties in interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies Robocast, Inc., as a real party in interest. Paper 5, 2.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner supports its proposal with testimony by Dr. Schmandt. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 16. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. See id. (Dr. Schmandt testifying that “Patent Owner’s proposed articulation is not meaningfully different” and that his analysis, opinions and conclusions . . . would not change if Patent Owner’s articulation were applied”). Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1123, 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 10–12. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 22 and 46, as well as dependent claim 45, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1123, 2–13; Ex. 2107, 5; Prelim. Resp. 9. For purposes of this Decision, we accord all other terms recited in the challenged claims their plain and ordinary meaning. See Ex. 1123, 17–20, 26–29 (court adopting plain and ordinary meaning of “plurality of accessible resources,” “content,” “without requiring user input,” “in accordance with said show structure,” “providing,” and “search results”); see Prelim. Resp. 8 (Patent Owner advocating that “any additional claim language be[] accorded its plain and ordinary meaning”).” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,965,932
• Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00592 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 and 63–67 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 42; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals. Second, we have also considered Mr. Schmandt’s testimony, and he provides no meaningful additional information to support reading Shimizu as Petitioner advocates. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119, 121–128. In testimony not cited by Petitioner, Mr. Schmandt admits that “Shimizu does not appear to disclose further details about how duration information is specified or stored within its system, or whether such intervals between nodes can be changed.” Id. ¶ 120. This testimony undermines Petitioner’s position that Shimizu’s hypertext nodes include duration information. Mr. Schmandt elaborates in testimony that Petitioner cites, but does not explain: In a real-world implementation of the proposed combination, for example, the display time could have been specified within the node information structure 9 of Shimizu. I note that node information structure 9 in Shimizu also contains display procedure slot 62 (Fig. 6), which points to “a procedure program function used when the node in question is to be displayed on the screen.” (Shimizu, 6:52-55.) Shimizu thus contemplates that node information structure 9 may contain information about how the node will be displayed to the user, and as such, it would have been obvious that durational information could also have been included as part of node information structure 9. This durational amount could have been a default display time specified by the user, or a display time specific to the node in question, as explained above. * * * Shimizu itself clearly contemplates the ability to customize the display of nodes, and as explained above, node information structure 9 (Fig. 6) includes display procedure slot 62 which points to a program function or procedure used to display the node content, thus making clear that node information structure 9 can hold information about how the node will be displayed. Id. ¶¶ 124, 128. Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that Shimizu would need to be modified for its hypertext nodes to include duration information is strong evidence that Shimizu does not disclose hypertext nodes that include duration information. This testimony (from ¶ 124) also suggests that Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times could be included in the procedure program function to which display procedure slot 62 points, rather than in the hypertext node, thereby providing additional evidence Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times are included in structure other than hypertext nodes. See also Ex. 1003, 6:52–55.” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web.” Pet. 6–7. Petitioner adds that “[s]uch a person could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–17). Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately 3-5 years of professional experience with these topics.” Prelim. Resp. 6. In addition, Patent Owner say that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Petitioner supports its proposal with testimony by Mr. Schmandt. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 16. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. See id. (Mr. Schmandt testifying that “Patent Owner’s proposed articulation is not meaningfully different” and that his “analysis, opinions and conclusions . . . would not change if Patent Owner’s articulation were applied”). Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1023, 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 10–12. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 1 and 63, as well as in certain dependent claims, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1023, 2–13; Ex. 2007, 5; Prelim. Resp. 9. Third, we construe “interactively variable duration information,” which is recited in each of challenged claims 1, 11, 12, and 64, as “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1023, 22–23; Prelim. Resp. 12–15.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 42; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals.” slip op. at 27

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,965,932

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.