• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01226 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Lenovo had not shown a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “identifies and refers to a valid region of the integrated circuit memory device as having a three-dimensional boundary delimited by phase ranges in command/address signals, data signals, and sampling signals. Nowhere does the ’835 patent specification indicate a valid region of the integrated circuit device as a whole can be represented by values for less than three parameters x, y, and z, all together, e.g., the command signals, the data signals, and the sampling signals. Also, the ’835 patent describes that the purpose of determining the boundaries of a valid region is to configure an optimal operating point for the integrated circuit device. Ex. 1001, 5:48–51. We have also considered other language in the claims. Each of independent claims 1 and 7 requires adjustment of the phase of all three command signals, data signals, and sampling signals, to determine the “valid operation range.” Ex. 1001, 6:56–7:4, 7:18–34. Each of independent claims 12, 20, and 23 requires adjustment of the phase of all three command signals, data signals, and sampling signals, to determine the “valid operating range.” Ex. 1001, 7:46–60, 8:28–44, 8:62–10:4. Based on the foregoing, the specification informs us that “valid operation range” is a three-dimensional range. We recognize that the specification does not expressly exclude a two-dimensional range or multiple two-dimensional ranges from being a “valid operation range” of the integrated circuit device. However, that is why we construe the claims to determine what, if anything, may be required despite a lack of express recitation in the claims.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Citing testimony from Dr. Baker, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter “POSITA”) “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and two to three years of experience designing high speed computer memory devices.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–35). Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Lee, testifies: “I agree with Petitioner that [Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill] would be the minimum qualifications for a POSITA.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., that a POSITA “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and two to three years of experience designing high speed computer memory devices.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 34. The stated level is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker and not disputed by Patent Owner. Further, it appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). C.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner still has not made a sufficient showing for limitation [1.4.a]. That is because Petitioner has, at best, identified only two 2-parameter valid operation ranges, i.e., an operation range involving just command and sampling signals, and an operation range involving data and sampling signals. Pet. 29–34. This does not satisfy “valid operation range” as we have construed above in Section III.C. Specifically, we determined that “valid operation range” is a three-dimensional range including a boundary for each of three underlying parameters which, for example, may be the phases of the command signals, the data signals, and the sampling signals. Nowhere has Petitioner identified or explained how Johnson discloses a valid operation range that is a function of three parameters together, e.g., the respective phases of command signals, data signals, and sampling signals. In addition to the foregoing, Petitioner’s reasoning for adjusting the phase of clock signals DCLK, which Petitioner regards as sampling signals, to synchronize with the phase of data signals on the DQ data bus is unpersuasive, because Johnson, as Petitioner has recognized, already adjusts the phase of data signals on the DQ data bus to synchronize with clock signals DCLK. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136; Ex. 1004, 4:55–59, 6:46–48, 7:25–31, 7:36–42). The proposed adjustment is redundant and serves little, if any purpose. Petitioner has not proposed to stop adjusting the data signals relative to DCLK. Nor has Petitioner articulated a reason to do the adjustment in both directions, i.e., adjusting the data signals relative to the sampling signals and adjusting the sampling signals relative to the data signals. We have also determined above, in discussing limitation [1.3], that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Johnson’s CCLK signal is a sampling signal. Further, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 24) that neither delay 55 nor delay lock loop 41 in Johnson’s Figure 4 is used for systematic calibration of any signal or in a signal calibration process. We find that the mere presence of a delay element in a signal path does not reasonably suggest systematic calibration. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that” slip op. at 31

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

    “Petitioner still has not made a sufficient showing for limitation [1.4.a]. That is because Petitioner has, at best, identified only two 2-parameter valid operation ranges, i.e., an operation range involving just command and sampling signals, and an operation range involving data and sampling signals. Pet. 29–34. This does not satisfy “valid operation range” as we have construed above in Section III.C. Specifically, we determined that “valid operation range” is a three-dimensional range including a boundary for each of three underlying parameters which, for example, may be the phases of the command signals, the data signals, and the sampling signals. Nowhere has Petitioner identified or explained how Johnson discloses a valid operation range that is a function of three parameters together, e.g., the respective phases of command signals, data signals, and sampling signals. In addition to the foregoing, Petitioner’s reasoning for adjusting the phase of clock signals DCLK, which Petitioner regards as sampling signals, to synchronize with the phase of data signals on the DQ data bus is unpersuasive, because Johnson, as Petitioner has recognized, already adjusts the phase of data signals on the DQ data bus to synchronize with clock signals DCLK. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136; Ex. 1004, 4:55–59, 6:46–48, 7:25–31, 7:36–42). The proposed adjustment is redundant and serves little, if any purpose. Petitioner has not proposed to stop adjusting the data signals relative to DCLK. Nor has Petitioner articulated a reason to do the adjustment in both directions, i.e., adjusting the data signals relative to the sampling signals and adjusting the sampling signals relative to the data signals. We have also determined above, in discussing limitation [1.3], that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Johnson’s CCLK signal is a sampling signal. Further, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 24) that neither delay 55 nor delay lock loop 41 in Johnson’s Figure 4 is used for systematic calibration of any signal or in a signal calibration process. We find that the mere presence of a delay element in a signal path does not reasonably suggest systematic calibration. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that” slip op. at 31

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,646,835
• Vicor Corporation v. Delta Electronics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00706 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “The Board has indicated that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 59 (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”).6 But “the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” Id. Here, although there is overlap in the prior art asserted, there are clear differences in the limitations in the respective claim sets in each case, which requires different analysis. The issues related to a potentially different priority date for claims in the -715 case also support the need for two petitions. Additionally, under these circumstances, it is not apparent there has been a substantial benefit afforded to Petitioner by filing two petitions. Thus, we determine that Petitioner’s filing of two parallel petitions does not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution in this particular case.” slip op. at 9

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

    “partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We therefore do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art and its definition appears to be similar to that of Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 10. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’534 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner argues that “[t]he invalidity issues raised in this Petition may be resolved without any formal claim construction.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner offers no claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 9–10. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,877,534
• Vicor Corporation v. Delta Electronics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00704 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because neither Ground 1 nor Ground 2 showed a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018). For the reasons below, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’580 patent, and we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “interpretations are appropriate. Controlling law requires construing claims in an inter partes review 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) (2021). “In determining the meaning of [a] disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). The Petition does not even purport to apply this controlling law with its Ground 1. In fact, Petitioner acknowledges that its Ground 1 does not apply a “proper” claim construction, describing Ground 1 in contrast to Ground 2 as follows: “Ground 1 is essentially based on what we read their infringement contentions to be, . . . Ground 2 [applies] what we view as the proper construction of the patent.” Ex. 1022, 7:17–8:16. Accordingly, based on this record, we determine Petitioner has not supported the claim interpretations on which its Ground 1 relies, and Petitioner therefore has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its challenge asserted as Ground 1.” slip op. at 8

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

    “But Petitioner states that in the combination presented in Ground 2, “a skilled artisan would have set the current limit threshold based on the current-handling capability of the VTM to protect the VTM from over-current.” Pet. 49–50. “In this circumstance, the PRM would never reach an over-current condition. Rather, the PRM would operate within its normal range.” Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 144) (emphasis added). But Petitioner’s description of the proposed combination—in which “the PRM would never reach an over-current condition”—cannot be reconciled with Petitioner’s showings for the “over-current” limitations, which require, e.g., “when the resonant converter generates the over-current” (limitation [1c]). For example, for limitation [1c], Petitioner states “when the VTM exceeds its normal operating current, the PRM (with a duty cycle current limiter as taught by Hwang) would reduce its duty cycle, which would reduce its output voltage and output current, and thus reduce the input voltage and current to the VTM.” Pet. 55–56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 158). But Petitioner and its declarant both state that in the combination proposed in Ground 2, “the PRM would never reach an over-current conduction.” Pet. 50; Ex. 1003 ¶ 144; see Pet. 59 (addressing similar language in limitation [1c]), 61 (addressing limitation [13c]), 63 (addressing limitation [17d]). Petitioner does not explain how those positions can be reconciled, nor does Petitioner adequately explain, much less support, a claim interpretation that would be satisfied by a proposed combination in which the resonant converter never generates an over-current. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in the challenges presented as Petitioner’s Ground 2.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 13, 17. Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in the field of power engineering.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–42). Patent Owner does not specifically address the level of ordinary skill. At this stage, Petitioner’s proposal appears consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’580 patent and prior art of record and is supported by expert testimony. We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. Upon this preliminary record and for the purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill with the exception that we delete the words “at least.”” slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,711,580
• Vicor Corporation v. Delta Electronics, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00715 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Vicor had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “The Board has indicated that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 59 (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”).7 But “the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” Id. Here, although there is overlap in the prior art asserted, there are clear differences in the limitations in the respective claim sets in each case, which requires different analysis. The issues related to a potentially different priority date for claims in this case also support the need for two petitions.8 Additionally, under these circumstances, it is not apparent there has been a substantial benefit afforded to Petitioner by filing two petitions. Thus, we determine that Petitioner’s filing of two parallel petitions does not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution in this particular case.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in power engineering” as of the date of the invention and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–48). 7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. 8 We address the merits of the priority issue below. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art and its definition appears to be similar to that of Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 9. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’534 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner argues that “[t]he invalidity issues raised in this Petition may be resolved without any formal claim construction.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner offers no claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 9. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 10

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

    “partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We therefore do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,877,534
• Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00147 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any claim was obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “to either: (1) “a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree) and two years of experience in networking or streaming media,” or (2) “a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 42). At this stage, Patent Owner “disputes Petitioner’s definition,” but does not explain what it disputes. Prelim. Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’156 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner fails to provide a sufficient basis for that contention. See Pet. 20– 21; PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that inherency requires a showing that “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present”). Moreover, Petitioner does not contend that Ogdon suggests (or renders obvious) element 1[A][3]. See Pet. 19–21. Further, even if the Petition could be read as including such a contention, we would preliminarily find, on this record, that Ogdon does not suggest storing multiple copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates, and that Petitioner fails to provide any rationale to support a theory that element 1[A][3] would have been obvious over Ogdon alone.11 In other words, even if an ordinarily skilled artisan could have modified Ogdon to store multiple copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates, Petitioner does not provide any rationale to support a contention that an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to implement Ogdon in this 11 The Board instituted inter partes review in other proceedings in which Petitioner contends that claim limitations including some of the same subject matter are taught or suggested by a combination of Ogdon and WO 02/075482 A2 (Allen). E.g., IPR2024-00044, Paper 1 at 21–24. There is no tension between this Decision and those other decisions because Petitioner’s contentions in those other proceedings are based on materially different arguments and evidence. manner. See, e.g., Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its contention that Ogdon discloses “the video server stores multiple different copies of the video encoded at different bit rates as multiple sets of streamlets,” as required by claim 1. Ex. 1001, 13:58–61 (element 1[A][3]). Consequently, Petitioner does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Ogdon.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,757,156
• Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00048 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3–8, and 10–21 were obvious over either asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to either: (1) “a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering streaming media,” or (2) “a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). At this stage, Patent Owner “disputes Petitioner’s definition,” but does not explain what it disputes. Prelim. Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’772 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner does not propose any express claim constructions, but acknowledges that the claims have been construed in the ITC Investigation. Pet. 12–13. At this stage, “Patent Owner does not propose that the Board construe any claims.” Prelim. Resp. 2. We determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “video (id. at Abs., 2:30–61, 13:47–49, 24:55), and one passage specifically states that one presentation includes “video” while another includes “graphic slides” (id. at 2:61–66). Ogdon references “full animation” and “limited or no animation” (as an example of a “better presentation quality” element that may be retrieved when there is sufficient time to retrieve the data) (id. at 22:44–47), but it fails to disclose that these “animations” are different copies of the same video. Finally, one of Ogdon’s claims recites “a first video portion” and “a different second video portion that corresponds in content with said first video portion,” where the “first and second video portions have substantially different expected data transmission rates.” Id. at claim 9 (emphasis added). However, Petitioner does not sufficiently show that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood this (i.e., two videos with corresponding content) to teach two copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates. Dr. Houh’s testimony on this point is conclusory, and thus, we give it little weight. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 65; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); cf. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 61 n.9, 70–72 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Jeffay, reaching contrary conclusion given other disclosures in Ogdon). To the extent Petitioner seeks to rely on an inherent disclosure, Petitioner fails to provide a sufficient basis for that contention. See Pet. 21– 22; PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that inherency requires a showing that “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present”). Moreover, Petitioner does not contend that Ogdon suggests (or renders obvious) element 1[A][2]. See Pet. 20–22. Further, even if the Petition could be read as including such a contention, we would preliminarily find, on this record, that Ogdon does not suggest storing multiple copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates, and that element 1[A][2] would have been obvious over Ogdon alone.10 In other words, even if an ordinarily skilled artisan could have modified Ogdon to store multiple copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates, Petitioner does not provide any rationale to support a contention that an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to implement Ogdon in this manner. See, e.g., Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,868,772
• Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00047 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–8, 10, and 12–16 because neither the Ogdon ground nor the Ogdon–Shteyn–Chou ground showed a reasonable likelihood of success.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “to either: (1) “a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree) and two years of experience in networking or streaming media,” or (2) “a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 42). At this stage, Patent Owner “disputes Petitioner’s definition,” but does not explain what it disputes. Prelim. Resp. 1. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’564 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “video (id. at Abs., 2:30–61, 13:47–49, 24:55), and one passage specifically states that one presentation includes “video” while another includes “graphic slides” (id. at 2:61–66). Ogdon references “full animation” and “limited or no animation” (as an example of a “better presentation quality” element that may be retrieved when there is sufficient time to retrieve the data) (id. at 22:44–47), but it fails to disclose that these “animations” are different copies of the same video. Finally, one of Ogdon’s claims recites “a first video portion” and “a different second video portion that corresponds in content with said first video portion,” where the “first and second video portions have substantially different expected data transmission rates.” Id. at claim 9 (emphasis added). However, Petitioner does not sufficiently show that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood this (i.e., two videos with corresponding content) to teach two copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates. Dr. Houh’s testimony on this point is conclusory, and thus, we give it little weight. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 65; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); cf. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 61 n.9, 70–72 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Jeffay, reaching contrary conclusion given other disclosures in Ogdon).” slip op. at 19

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

    “However, Ogdon never describes two copies of the same video presentation. It also does not refer to creating two copies of identical content (video or otherwise) that are encoded differently. As a result, although we preliminarily agree that Ogdon’s presentation teaches the claimed “video”,9 we do not agree that Ogdon teaches storing multiple copies of the same video, as required by element 1[A][3].” slip op. at 18

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,407,564
• Infinera Corporation v. Alexander Soto And Walter SotoInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00834 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5, 10–14, and 16–21 were obvious over the cited combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We accordingly determine that Petitioner does not sufficiently show that Vrazel meets the requirements of the recited step of “converting the first electrical binary data signal in the pluggable optical transceiver module to a first electrical m-ary modulation signal.” We therefore conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pang and Vrazel. Each of claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 13, 14, and 16–21 depends directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, and Petitioner challenges these claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pang and Vrazel. Ex. 1001, 15:23–28, 32–35, 16:9–11, 16:18–25, 16:30–43; Pet. 46–56. The deficiency in Petitioner’s analysis of independent claim 1 also applies to each of these dependent claims. We accordingly conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 13, 14, and 16–21. 3. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 11 and 12 over Pang, Vrazel and Yee (Ground 2). Claims 11 and 12 depend directly from claim 1. Petitioner does not rely on Yee to remedy the deficiencies discussed above concerning the “converting” to “m-ary modulation” signal step, but rather relies on its arguments associated with claim 1. See Pet. 59–60. We already addressed those arguments, and we find those arguments unavailing for the reasons stated above. We accordingly conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of dependent claims 11 and 12.” slip op. at 21

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached

    “III CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we deny institution of an inter partes review.2 IV, ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. 2 Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 13–14 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) or under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Prelim. Resp. 33– 54.” slip op. at 23

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “III CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we deny institution of an inter partes review.2 IV, ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. 2 Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 13–14 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) or under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Prelim. Resp. 33– 54.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have “at least a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or a similar degree and at least two years of professional experience with optical communications, networking, and signal processing,” wherein “[m]ore experience can supplement less education and vice versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 9

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,887,795
• Canon, Inc. / Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. WSOU Investments, LLC D/B/A Brazos Licensing And DevelopmentInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01532 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–25 because the Petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on 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 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or computer science, or an equivalent degree, and two to three years of experience in the field of optical engineering.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 40). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art at this time. Prelim. Resp. 1. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’030 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner (see Pet. 19–21) and Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 6–11) put forth arguments regarding the construction of certain terms of the challenged claims. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

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

    “detect motion. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7 (“[E]valuation of the degree of correlation becomes possible on the basis of the entire photographic object image (i.e. the frame image)”), 30 (“The threshold value comparison unit 973 compares the level value of the non-correlating portion (differing portion) between the frame images . . . . [T]he level data of the previous frame image is subtracted from the level data of the current frame image.”). Petitioner fails to explain how full-frame data for Kubo’s image comparison would be obtained where only portions of Sugitani’s image sensor 401 are exposed by slit 402.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,493,030
• Apple Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2022-01037 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, and 5–17 unpatentable, including a sufficient motivation and expectation of success for its proposed Sokal modifications.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create a circuit such as that shown in Petitioner’s proposed alternative Figure 5 or that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. 5. Conclusion Petitioner’s contentions that claims 1 and 5 would have been obvious over Sokal, Sedra, and Tsutsui rely in part on the alternative Sokal Figure 5 circuit proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 32–46. For the reasons discussed above, the information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claim 1 or 5.” slip op. at 22

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

    “Additionally, Petitioner has not described a motivation to combine the different embodiments of Sokal. We are mindful that “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other” does not “require a leap of inventiveness” and may be a predictable variation supporting an obviousness determination. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Still, “to establish a prima facie case of obviousness based on a combination of elements disclosed in the prior art, the [Petitioner] must articulate the basis on which it concludes that it would have been obvious to make the claimed invention.” Eli Lilly and Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 471 F.3d 1369, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Impermissible hindsight is inferred when the specific understanding or principle within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that would have motivated one (with no knowledge of the claimed invention) to make the proposed combination has not been explained. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998). modification (changing the input for attenuator 3) that is specifically described in Sokal as relating to a fixed phase-shift network, but employed it for use with a variable phase-shift network. Prelim. Resp. 22–25. In doing so, the only motivation Petitioner advances for making this modification is in the quote from Sokal that it would “eas[e] the requirements imposed upon the fixed phase-shift network.” Pet. 13 (quoting Ex. 1005, 14:8–10). This does not address why one of ordinary skill would have selected this modification where, as in Figure 5 (and Petitioner’s proposed alternative version of Figure 5) a variable phase-shift network, and not a fixed phase-shift network, is used. While not mentioned in the Petition, Petitioner’s declarant testifies regarding the modification that “this advantageous performance would be provided whether the phase-shift network is fixed or variable.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 58. However, we agree with Patent Owner that this is conclusory and provides no meaningful explanation regarding the purported advantages in a variable phase-shift network. See Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Additionally, as discussed above, Petitioner appears to employ a further modification of Sokal’s “[m]ore elaborate versions of attenuator 3” embodiment, in which only a forward signal is sensed by attenuator 3. Pet. 13–14 (quoting Ex. 1005, 7:13–21). Petitioner does not describe the motivation for using only the forward output signal, and does not provide any discussion regarding whether one of ordinary skill would have expected to be successful in combining the further modification of Sokal’s “[m]ore elaborate” attenuator 3 with the Figure 5 embodiment of Sokal, removing the reflected power from the phase correcting circuitry. the three modifications) of Sokal disclosed side by side, Petitioner proposes that we combine a variable phase-shift network embodiment (Figure 5) with a fixed phase-shift embodiment (the first modification) with an unsupported modification to Sokal’s “[m]ore elaborate” attenuator 3 embodiment (the third modification), without sufficient support regarding the motivation to do so or regarding the likelihood of success in the result. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create a circuit such as that shown in Petitioner’s proposed alternative Figure 5 or that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 20

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,947,164

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.