- Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00069 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that the prior art teaches creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, as claims 1–18 and 21–23 require.
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.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification describes only fingerprint creation outside the virtual machine monitor because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. See Sur-reply 1– 2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not contest that Capalik’s fingerprint generation occurs outside the components that Petitioner identifies as the claimed virtual machine monitor. Reply 1–3; see Pet. 18–23 (mapping Capalik’s hypervisor kernel 516 to the claimed virtual machine monitor); id. at 30–31 (mapping Capalik’s processing module 508 and signature generation engine 530 to the claimed fingerprint creation); see also Prelim. Resp. 21–23 (explaining Petitioner’s mapping). Instead, Petitioner asserts that the at-issue claim language—“at the virtual machine monitor”—does not require “that each of the subsequently recited steps must be performed by or in the [virtual machine monitor],” but instead only requires “that the fingerprint is generated by the same decoy system that contains the [virtual machine monitor].” Reply 2. Petitioner argues that the intrinsic record supports its position because “[n]owhere in the ’697 Patent is there any teaching or suggestion that a [virtual machine monitor] creates a fingerprint/signature indicative of attack activity,” and instead, “[t]he ’697 Patent teaches that its signature generation engine is separate from the [virtual machine monitor].” Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:12–19). In addition, Petitioner asserts that requiring fingerprint creation at the virtual machine monitor “directly” slip op. at 8
- Adverse judgmentOther
“D. Statutory Disclaimer and Remaining Challenged Claims The Petition challenges claims 1–23. Pet. 10. However, because Patent Owner disclaimed claims 19 and 20 (Ex. 2010), the remaining challenged claims are 1–18 and 21–23. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (2020) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”). Of the remaining challenged claims, only claim 1 is independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,106,697 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00067 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–23 because the cited art did not teach or suggest creating the claimed fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent is unpatentable. We therefore do not institute trial on any challenged claims or grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,106,697 - Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. v. SK Nexilis Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01462 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“experience working on the development of materials or components for electronic devices such as batteries.” Pet. 2. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education, such as a graduate degree, could compensate for less work experience, and additional work experience could compensate for less formal education.” Id. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition because it appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’014 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“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). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). in this proceeding.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner contends that “[t]he Board need not construe any term in order to determine that institution should be denied.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Hanafusa in light of Dobashi with a reasonable expectation of success as Petitioner contends. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that the subject matter of claim 1, and claims 4 and 8 that depend therefrom, would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Hanafusa and Dobashi.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner also focuses on Hanafusa’s teaching that all known methods can be used to make a rough surface low-profile, and Dobashi’s teaching that RSm can be used as an indicator for judgment of the surface, to support its contention that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Dobashi’s RSm to further achieve Hanafusa’s purpose, without explaining how and why that would be the case. In particular, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Josefowicz adequately explain why a POSITA looking for ways to make Hanafusa’s surface roughness low-profile would look to methods to achieve as the period of waviness, RSm can also be used as an indicator for judgment of the surface.” Ex. 1005, 2:66–3:1, 6:23–26. Dobashi explains that waviness is “an indicator for determining whether the fine pattern forming performance is good or bad,” and “[t]he surface has small waviness and is smooth when RSm is large, and the surface has large waviness and is rough when RSm is small.” Id. at 3:1–3, 6:27–29. Dobashi also teaches that surface roughness Rzjis is used as a low-profile indicator. Ex. 1005, 2:66– 3:1. Dobashi, therefore, teaches that RSm is an indicator of surface waviness, which Dobashi explains is different than surface roughness. Id. at 2:66–3:3, 6:23–29. Given these teachings in Dobashi, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Josefowicz sufficiently explains how or why a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Dobashi’s RSm values to make Hanafusa’s surface roughness low-profile. See Pet. 10–12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–52.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,346,014 - Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View TechnologiesInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00716 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not explain with particularity how the cited references taught the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“petitioner is master of its complaint.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 363 (2018). As such, Petitioner has the responsibility to make plain its challenges to the disputed claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). The Petition does not make clear Petitioner’s theory of the case. It is not the Board’s responsibility to weave together Petitioner’s evidence into a cohesive case. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (stating that Petitioner “must include” a full statement supporting its challenge “including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”); see also Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Noting that a party’s burden “cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence.”).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “a bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent educational background, or at least five years of industry experience in software development. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its papers. See generally Prelim. Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Based on the record before us, we see no need for express construction of any term for the purposes of this Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”).” slip op. at 7
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner. As the Supreme Court has noted, “the petitioner is master of its complaint.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 363 (2018). As such, Petitioner has the responsibility to make plain its challenges to the disputed claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). The Petition does not make clear Petitioner’s theory of the case. It is not the Board’s responsibility to weave together Petitioner’s evidence into a cohesive case. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (stating that Petitioner “must include” a full statement supporting its challenge “including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”); see also Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Noting that a party’s burden “cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence.”).” slip op. at 13
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,671,648 - Microsoft Corporation / HP Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00457 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“The parties agreed that resolution of this time bar issue would be resolved in the same manner as in IPR2024-00456. In particular, the parties stipulated: The parties stipulate with respect to the privity time bar issue that the facts and issues in IPR2024-00457 are the same as in IPR2024-00456, so that any decision the Board reaches resolving the privity time bar issue in IPR2024-00456 will apply and resolve the privity time bar issue in IPR2024-00457 in the same manner. Notice of Stipulation, Paper 14, 1. In the decision on institution for IPR2024-00456, the Board determined that “Lenovo is not a privity of Microsoft [in this context] and the Petition is not time-barred under § 315(b).” IPR2024-00456, Paper 22, 10 (July 31, 2024). Thus, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the instant petition is also not time-barred.” slip op. at 16
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For this decision, we again construe “plurality of views of a plurality of visual representations of computer content” as “referring to a plurality of ways of organizing visual representations of computer content.” We again note that this limitation is distinct from merely providing a plurality of ways of displaying content (by, for example, changing display orientation, color, resolution, etc.). Petitioner assumes this construction for the Petition, and Patent Owner assumes this construction for Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Moreover, the construction is well supported by the ’715 patent’s claims and specification for reasons similar to those stated in the prior decision cited by Petitioner. IPR2021-00786, Paper 6, 13–16 (construing this term for the ’715 patent). For this decision, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any other claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analysis below and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties.7 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” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“Below, we explain that we deny institution based on the merits: Petitioner has not shown, with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial. In the interest of judicial efficiency, we therefore do not need to consider discretionary denial. Cf. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explaining that the Board is not required to reach issues unnecessary to “resolve the controversy”); see also, e.g., Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. Dish Techs. LLC, IPR 2024-00512, Paper 12, 12, n. 3 (declining to reach the 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) issues when denying based on 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)).” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field, plus two years of work experience in designing GUIs for computing devices. Ex-1003, ¶ 21. More education could substitute for experience and vice versa. Id. Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art and the ’715 patent. 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 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,880,715 - Microsoft Corporation / HP Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00458 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both §103 grounds because neither combination showed a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4 and 11–14 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA): would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field, plus two years of work experience in designing [graphical user interfaces (GUIs)] for computing devices. [Ex. 1003] ¶ 20–22. More education could substitute for experience and vice versa. Id. Pet. 14; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 21 (Dr. Houh testifying that this level of skill is appropriate). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with 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 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that in IPR2021-00786, the Board construed “plurality of views of a plurality of visual representations of computer content” as “referring to a plurality of ways of organizing visual representations of computer content.” Pet. 14–15 (citing IPR2021-00786, Paper 6, 13–16). IPR2021-00786 involved U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715 B2 (“the ’715 patent”). Petitioner further notes that “the Board found [this] limitation ‘is distinct from merely providing a plurality of ways of displaying content (by, for example, changing display orientation, color, resolution, etc.).” Id. Petitioner further argues that during a reexamination proceeding of the ’715 patent, “the Examiner also clarified that the ‘plurality of views’ limitation does not encompass merely changing to entirely different content.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 (90/014,958 Ex Parte Reexamination)). Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Houh, applied this construction when forming opinions and Petitioner proposes that we adopt this construction in this proceeding. Ex. 1003 ¶ 53; Pet. 15.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Here, claim 1 requires the functionality of, for example, “selecting one of the plurality of views for display on the computer system in response to the detected current computer system configuration.” Ex. 1001, 71:34–36. As in Arendi and DSS, this functionality plays a major role in the subject matter claimed; this selection as at the heart of the ’818 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:49–62 (explaining that patent is directed to providing different views). We also determine that the limitation is not “unusually simple.” The cited art understood that display orientation could be modified based on a change in configuration (Pröll) and understood that a view could be selected based on a user’s active choice (the user shaking the device as in Martinez6), but the cited art did not recognize selecting a view based on a change of configuration. Prelim. Resp. 41. The evidence of record does not indicate that recognition of this function would be “unusually simple.”” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,564,818 - Honeywell International Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00493 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Honeywell did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 were unpatentable over any of its three obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge of independent claim 1 or dependent claims 2–9 over the combination of Simmelink and Section 73.1015.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelOther
“PHOSITA) at the time of the ’532 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in the field of chemistry, chemical engineering, polymer chemistry, or materials science and at least three years of relevant work experience in the field of high strength fibers.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). Petitioner adds that individuals with different educational backgrounds could still be of ordinary skill in the art if they have “additional experience [that] compensates for a deficit in their education and experience stated above.” Id. According to Patent Owner, a person or ordinary skill in the art, would have (i) a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, polymer chemistry, materials science, chemical engineering, or biomedical engineering and (ii) three years of experience in designing and manufacturing gel-spun UHMWPE yarns. At this level of skill, a PHOSITA would have a detailed understanding of the information provided in the Technology Background, Section II, supra, including (i) the differences between linear HDPE and UHMWPE, (ii) the history underlying Section 73.1015 and the early failures of the 1960s-era blue, melt-extruded polyethylene sutures, (iii) why the molecular orientation of polyethylene molecules leads to strong yarns in the special case of gel-spun UHMWPE, and (iv) the challenges associated with coloring gel-spun UHMWPE yarns, especially for end-use medical applications. Prelim. Resp. 33–34. We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar, except that Patent Owner additionally recognizes a Bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering and requires experience in designing and manufacturing gel-spun UHMWPE yarns. In any event, we do not need to the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“a skilled artisan would have understood that the “gel spinning” process recited in the claims requires the use of a solvent during the spinning process. Indeed, the Specification describes this term, as follows: Gel spinning is understood to include at least the steps of spinning filaments from a solution of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in a spin solvent; cooling the filament obtained to form a gel filament removing at least partly the spin solvent from the gel filament; removing at least partly the spin solvent from the gel filament; and drawing the filament in at least one drawing step before during or after removing spin solvent. Ex. 1001, 2:31–37. We recognize the inventor’s lexicography as dispositive with respect to the meaning of the term “gel spinning.” See Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005); SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner
“Claim 1 describes gel spinning as the manner by which the filaments comprised in the claimed colored multi-filament yarn are obtained. This, on its face, is a product-by-process claim element because it describes the filament structure being obtained in a particular way, i.e., by gel spinning. See Kamstrup A/S v. Axioma Metering UAB, 43 F.4th 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (agreeing with the Board that “cast in one piece” is a product-by-process claim element as it describes the structure being cast “in a particular way”). For this element to be limiting, it must impart “structural and functional differences” that distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, 580 F.3d 1340, 1365–67 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Patent Owner argues persuasively that gel spinning imparts structural and functional differences to the claimed product because the process “creates overlap between polyethylene molecules within the UHMWPE filaments that maximizes the intermolecular Van der Waals interactions, resulting in highly crystalline filaments with high tensile strength.” Prelim. Resp. 38, 22 (citing Ex. 1014, 62–66). According to Patent Owner, “the structure of the gel spun UHMWPE is substantially different from other types of UHMWPE such as compression-molded and ram-extruded UHMWPE used to make joint replacements and other orthopedic implants.” Id. at 38.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,280,532 - Microsoft Corporation / HP Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00454 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because Petitioners did not show a reasonable likelihood that the Reavey–Chandhri combination met limitation 1h.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“view of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded Petitioners have shown with sufficient particularity why the combined teachings of Reavey and Chandhri disclose or suggest the recited elements of Limitation [1h]. For our purposes here, we accept Petitioners’ contention that, in light of the Reavey and Chandhri disclosures, a skilled artisan would have been led to configure Reavey’s device to display in laptop mode a first set of visual representations using a menu-based view and transition when in flat mode to an image-based scrolling view to display a second set of visual representations. Still, we remain unpersuaded Petitioners have established sufficiently that the Reavey and Chandhri combination discloses or suggests to a skilled artisan a configuration in which the device filters the first set of visual representations by identifying and removing content therefrom to be used with the image-based scrolling view to generate a second set of visual representations that are based on the filtered version of the first set of visual representations.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioners assert, with the support of its expert, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have had a “bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field, plus two years of work experience in designing GUIs for computing devices.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner does not dispute or address this characterization of the skill level of an artisan in the relevant field. See generally Prelim. Resp. On this record, Petitioners’ proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’315 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we rely on Petitioners’ proposed level of ordinary skill in the art to focus the lens through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The Petition offers explicit claim constructions for a number of claim terms, including “plurality of views,” “display component,” “execution component,” “storage component,” and “first/second user interface component.” Pet. 11–15. And Patent Owner states that it “does not challenge Petitioners’ explicit claim constructions because the Petition fails even if these constructions are adopted.” Prelim. Resp. 18. Nevertheless, we do not reach Petitioners’ proposed constructions because a resolution in this matter does not turn on the precise meaning of any of those terms; in fact, none of the proposed constructions are for terms that are used in Limitation [1h]. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For the language used in Limitation [1h], which is critical to our decision, both parties rely on the plain and ordinary meaning and neither party suggests that any term used has a particular meaning beyond what is clearly conveyed within the context of the ’315 patent. Therefore, no term in this proceeding needs to be construed expressly.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“view of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded Petitioners have shown with sufficient particularity why the combined teachings of Reavey and Chandhri disclose or suggest the recited elements of Limitation [1h]. For our purposes here, we accept Petitioners’ contention that, in light of the Reavey and Chandhri disclosures, a skilled artisan would have been led to configure Reavey’s device to display in laptop mode a first set of visual representations using a menu-based view and transition when in flat mode to an image-based scrolling view to display a second set of visual representations. Still, we remain unpersuaded Petitioners have established sufficiently that the Reavey and Chandhri combination discloses or suggests to a skilled artisan a configuration in which the device filters the first set of visual representations by identifying and removing content therefrom to be used with the image-based scrolling view to generate a second set of visual representations that are based on the filtered version of the first set of visual representations.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,003,315 - Microsoft Corporation / HP Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00455 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because Petitioners did not show a reasonable likelihood that Reavey and Chandhri disclose or suggest limitation 1[h].
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“shown with sufficient particularity why the combined teachings of Reavey and Chandhri disclose or suggest the recited elements of Limitation [1h]. And as a result, we find Petitioners have not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that the Reavey/Chandhri combination render independent claims 1 and 28 unpatentable, which is a deficiency that necessarily extends therethrough to all of the dependent claims challenged in all three grounds.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioners assert, with the support of its expert, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have had a “bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field, plus two years of work experience in designing GUIs for computing devices.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner does not dispute or address this characterization of the skill level of an artisan in the relevant field. See generally Prelim. Resp. On this record, Petitioners’ proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’315 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we rely on Petitioners’ proposed level of ordinary skill in the art to focus the lens through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The Petition offers explicit claim constructions for a number of claim terms, including “plurality of views,” “display component,” “execution component,” “storage component,” and “first/second user interface component.” Pet. 12–16. And Patent Owner states that it “does not challenge Petitioners’ explicit claim constructions because the Petition fails even if these constructions are adopted.” Prelim. Resp. 18. Nevertheless, we do not reach Petitioners’ proposed constructions because a resolution in this matter does not turn on the precise meaning of any of those terms; in fact, none of the proposed constructions are for terms that are used in Limitation [1h]. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For the language used in Limitation [1h], which is critical to our decision, both parties rely on the plain and ordinary meaning and neither party suggests that any term used has a particular meaning beyond what is clearly conveyed within the context of the ’315 patent. Therefore, no term in this proceeding needs to be construed expressly.” slip op. at 12
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“view of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded Petitioners have shown with sufficient particularity why the combined teachings of Reavey and Chandhri disclose or suggest the recited elements of Limitation [1h]. For our purposes here, we accept Petitioners’ contention that, in light of the Reavey and Chandhri disclosures, a skilled artisan would have been led to configure Reavey’s device to display in laptop mode a first set of visual representations using a menu-based view and transition when in flat mode to an image-based scrolling view to display a second set of visual representations. Still, we remain unpersuaded Petitioners have established sufficiently that the Reavey and Chandhri combination discloses or suggests to a skilled artisan a configuration in which the device filters the first set of visual representations by identifying and removing content therefrom to be used with the image-based scrolling view to generate a second set of visual representations that are based on the filtered version of the first set of visual representations.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,003,315 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00239 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 would have been obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . 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 set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of claims 1–20 of the ’094 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The express language of the claim, however, does not support using the “central axis” as the measuring point for determining if one object is laterally offset from another. For example, the term “central axis” is not used in the relevant claim phrase and the dictionary definitions of “lateral” relied upon by Petitioner and Mr. Jobin to show the ordinary meaning of the claim term do not suggest that the “central axis” is the reference point for determining whether a first object is “laterally offset” from a second object. As such, we determine that the claim language supports Patent Owner’s construction requiring that the “groove” be “off to the side” of the entire mandrel, and not merely the “central axis” of the mandrel. Prelim. Resp. 54. We must also resolve whether the entire groove is required to be laterally offset from the chamfered mandrel, or only a portion of it. On this point, the claims do not use the term “portion,” but rather specify that the “groove” is “laterally offset from the chamfered mandrel.” Ex. 1001, 14:4– 5, 15:19–20. This suggests that the entire “groove” must be offset from the “chamfered mandrel.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“That argument, however, does not explain why it would have been obvious to laterally offset the groove of Yoakim from the chamfered mandrel. Rather, as demonstrated by Mr. Jobin’s testimony, this argument relates to the general use of a sealing member in a groove, to the extent it was ultimately determined that such a configuration is not expressly disclosed in Yoakim. Id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 296 (“It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to position a sealing member in a groove to solidify the between counter-force portion 161 and engaging portion 157 in Figure 35 of Yoakim is more appropriately identified as the claimed “groove.” Prelim. Resp. 60–61. We need not resolve this issue, however, as Petitioner does not persuasively demonstrate that either potential “groove” is “laterally offset” from the chamfered mandrel. placement of the seal and improve its sealing stability and strength. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize a groove and seal configuration in the brewing head . . . .”) (emphasis added). Even if we interpret the recited portion of the Petition as an argument for placing the groove entirely to the side of the mandrel in Yoakim, the Petition does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to do so. In Figure 35 of Yoakim, the seal and groove, as well as an elastic loading means, act as a valve means to control the level of pressure exerted in the capsule and “optimize interaction of water and the ground coffee particles to obtain a good extraction of the coffee and aroma compounds.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 370–372, 382, 396–398, 434–436, 445; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 286–290; Pet. 63. These are the same beneficial properties relied upon by Petitioner to support the proposed combination, and Petitioner does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yoakim in order to achieve results that are already obtained in the identified embodiment. Pet. 63. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 12 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch 929, and Rossi.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,542,094
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.