- Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Spex Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 17, 2017 · IPR2017-00825 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 55 or 57.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Our Rules require that a petition for inter partes review identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and must specify “where each element of [a challenged] claim is 3 Petitioner proposes a definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 13; see Ex. 1010 ¶ 20. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition. For purposes of this Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Moreover, “a challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“2. “security module” and “target module” The terms “security module” and “target module” both are recited in each challenged claim. Petitioner identifies a dispute between itself and Patent Owner in related district court litigation as to whether those terms require only “functional (not necessarily physically distinct) modules.” Pet. 15. Specifically, Petitioner points to a statement in an infringement claim chart that appears to have been attached as an exhibit to Patent Owner’s complaint in the litigation that the accused device “has at least two modules, a security module (e.g., cryptographic functionality) and a target module (e.g., storage functionality).” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 2). Petitioner states that it “expressly disagrees with Patent Owner’s broad construction of the ‘modules’ language as covering structures that are not physically distinct.” Id. Petitioner contends that the proper construction of “module” “requires a structure that performs as a ‘security’ module and another separate (potentially connected) structure that performs as a ‘target’ (e.g., memory module, second security module, etc.).” Id. at 18.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not sufficiently, persuasively explain how Jones’s disclosure of a memory card that “stores information enabling [a] host computer to automatically identify the particular . . . card as soon as the card and host are connected, and to automatically establish [an] appropriate hardware/software interface” teaches or suggests “receiving a request from the host computing device for information regarding the type of the modular device” and “providing the type of the target module to the host computing device in response to the request,” as recited in claim 55. Indeed, Jones’s statement that the card includes information enabling the host to “automatically” identify the card “as soon as the card and host are connected” suggests not only that receipt of a request is unnecessary, but also that the information is not provided “in response to [a] request.” We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s alternative argument based on a device driver “directly interrogat[ing] the CIS structures in the attribute memory.” Pet. 20. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 16), Jones describes that as separate from the embodiment relied upon by Petitioner as disclosing all other limitations of claim 55, whereas anticipation requires that all of the limitations be arranged or combined in the same way in the prior art as recited in the claim. Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Moreover, because Petitioner does not advance any argument that the “CIS structures in the attribute memory” perform the remaining claim steps or explain how the “operably connecting” step of claim 55 would be taught or suggested by Jones “in cases wherein the host computer is not provided with PCMCIA Card Services and Socket Services functions,” we agree with Patent Owner that this alternative argument also fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its obviousness challenge to claim 55 over Jones.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not sufficiently, persuasively explain how Jones’s disclosure of a memory card that “stores information enabling [a] host computer to automatically identify the particular . . . card as soon as the card and host are connected, and to automatically establish [an] appropriate hardware/software interface” teaches or suggests “receiving a request from the host computing device for information regarding the type of the modular device” and “providing the type of the target module to the host computing device in response to the request,” as recited in claim 55. Indeed, Jones’s statement that the card includes information enabling the host to “automatically” identify the card “as soon as the card and host are connected” suggests not only that receipt of a request is unnecessary, but also that the information is not provided “in response to [a] request.” We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s alternative argument based on a device driver “directly interrogat[ing] the CIS structures in the attribute memory.” Pet. 20. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 16), Jones describes that as separate from the embodiment relied upon by Petitioner as disclosing all other limitations of claim 55, whereas anticipation requires that all of the limitations be arranged or combined in the same way in the prior art as recited in the claim. Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Moreover, because Petitioner does not advance any argument that the “CIS structures in the attribute memory” perform the remaining claim steps or explain how the “operably connecting” step of claim 55 would be taught or suggested by Jones “in cases wherein the host computer is not provided with PCMCIA Card Services and Socket Services functions,” we agree with Patent Owner that this alternative argument also fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its obviousness challenge to claim 55 over Jones.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,003,135 - Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Spex Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 17, 2017 · IPR2017-00824 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Kingston did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6–8, 11–15, 23–28, and 36–39 were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded, on this record, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims on the asserted grounds. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6–8, 11–15, 23–28, and 36–39 of the ’802 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“A claim limitation using the phrase “means for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.2 See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Section 112 ¶ 6 provides that: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process, wherein we first identify the claimed function and then determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function. Id. at 1351; Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Moreover, “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Cardiac Pacemakers, 296 F.3d at 1113. This analysis applies similarly under both the broadest reasonable construction and district court-type claim construction standards. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348 (affirming application of § 112 ¶ 6 in district court litigation); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011)” slip op. at 8
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and must specify “where each element of [a challenged] claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Moreover, “a challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1193). slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and must specify “where each element of [a challenged] claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Moreover, “a challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1193). slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,088,802 - Alstom Grid LLC v. Dominion Resources, Inc. And Virginia Electric And Power CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00504 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“partes review of claims 1‒3, 5‒10, 12, 13, and 15‒20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,437,883 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’883 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Dominion Resources, Inc. and Virginia Electric and Power Company (collectively, “Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 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.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and associated evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of all the challenged claims. We, therefore, deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner argues that Deaver fails to disclose “a signal reporting what was sensed by a sensor that is not included in the subset.” Prelim. Resp. 14‒15. We agree with Patent Owner. As argued by Patent Owner, Petitioner contends that Deaver discloses “alerts” that are transmitted when the minimum and maximum voltage thresholds are exceeded. Prelim. Resp. 14‒15; see Pet. 23. However, the CPVMs transmitting the alerts are monitors at each customer premises that are “selected by an electric utility company as a desired point within the power distribution system [] that will be voltage monitored.” Ex. 1004, 4:1‒3. As such, the CPVMs are all in the subset of sensors being monitored, and none of CPVMs are “not included in the subset.” Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Deaver fails to disclose “at least one other sensor of the plurality of sensors that is not included in the subset is further configured to send a respective reporting signal.”” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner generally states that Deaver, LaPlace, Richeson, and Bell are analogous to the ’883 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor, dealing with power distribution systems and power management in power distribution systems, and metering technology. Pet. 16. Petitioner goes on to characterize each of the references in this field of endeavor. Id. at 16‒17. Although a determination that the cited prior art is analogous to the ’883 patent provides insight into the scope and content of the prior art to be examined, such a determination is, by itself, insufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. Petitioner must set forth an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning in supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness, and must provide a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements disclosed by each of the references. Here, Petitioner has failed to provide such a reasoning.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that there is no need to construe expressly any of the claim terms at this time. Although Petitioner and Patent Owner disagree as to the construction of the term “energy delivery parameter,” we need not construe this term because it is not necessary to resolve the dispositive issues discussed below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,437,883 - Alstom Grid LLC v. Dominion Resources, Inc. And Virginia Electric And Power CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00503 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5, 7–13, 15, 16, and 18–34 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that there is no need to construe expressly any of the claim terms at this time. Although Petitioner and Patent Owner disagree as to the construction of the term “energy delivery parameter,” we need not construe this term because it is not necessary to resolve the dispositive issues discussed below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner argues that Deaver fails to disclose “a signal reporting what was sensed by a sensor that is not included in the subset.” Prelim. Resp. 14‒16. We agree with Patent Owner. As argued by Patent Owner, Petitioner contends that Deaver discloses “alerts” that are transmitted when the minimum and maximum voltage thresholds are exceeded. Prelim. Resp. 14‒16; see Pet. 22. However, the CPVMs transmitting the alerts are monitors at each customer premises that are “selected by an electric utility company as a desired point within the power distribution system [] that will be voltage monitored.” Ex. 1004, 4:1‒3. As such, the CPVMs are all in the subset of sensors being monitored, and none of the CPVMS are “not included in the subset.” Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Deaver fails to disclose “at least one other sensor of the plurality of sensors that is not included in the subset is further configured to send a respective reporting signal.” Patent Owner further argues that Deaver fails to disclose “add[ing] to the subset the at least one other sensor that sent the respective reporting signal,” as recited by independent claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 8‒14. We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner contends that Deaver discloses voltage adjustment instructions based on the reported measurement data, and “because any number of customer premises may be selected for voltage monitoring, the reporting meter could be added to the monitored subset.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:45‒60, 5:47‒62, 6:46‒51; Ex. 1001, 38‒42). However, as argued by Patent Owner, Deaver is silent as to adding to the subset of CPVMs being monitored. See Prelim. Resp. 9. At best, Petitioner’s argument that any number of customer premises may be selected, and meters could be added to the subset is an argument towards the obviousness of this limitation, not anticipation, as challenged by Petitioner. See Pet. 23. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Deaver fails to disclose “wherein the voltage controller is further configured to add to the subset the at least one other sensor in response to receiving the reporting,” as recited by independent claim 1.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner generally states that Deaver, LaPlace, Richeson, and Bell are analogous to the ’510 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor, dealing with power distribution systems and power management in power distribution systems, and metering technology. Pet. 14. Petitioner goes on to characterize each of the references in this field of endeavor. Id. at 14‒15. Although a determination that the cited prior art is analogous to the ’510 patent provides insight into the scope and content of the prior art to be examined, such a determination is, by itself, insufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. Petitioner must set forth an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning in supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness, and must provide a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements disclosed by each of the references. Here, Petitioner has failed to provide such a reasoning. We further agree with Patent Owner that testimony from Dr. Kezunovic’s Declaration should not be incorporated in to the Petition. See Prelim. Resp. 31‒33. The Petition itself does not address a rationale to combine Deaver, LaPlace, Richeson, Bell, Keefe, and ANSI C84.1-2006, and further does not direct us to discussion in Dr. Kezunovic’s Declaration for a rationale to combine. At best, Dr. Kezunovic asserts that “DMS, smart meters, and substations are well-known prior art elements, whereby their combination yields predictable results.” Ex. 1001, 95; see Ex. 1001, 176, 238, 250. However, Dr. Kezunovic does not provide any explanation as to why the combination of “DMS, smart meters, and substations” would yield predictable results. Accordingly, even if we were to incorporate Dr. Kezunovic’s Declaration in to the Petition, which we do not, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has set forth articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning in supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness. As such, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood in prevailing in its obviousness challenges.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,577,510
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.