- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. H2 Intellect LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 20, 2025 · IPR2025-00480 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Elliott/Jacob grounds did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15 were unpatentable, and Musk did not cure the deficiencies.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“c) Summary We may institute an inter partes review when “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(a). We have determined that, at this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, the information presented in the Petition does not show that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to its challenge to claim 1 based on the combination of Elliott and Jacob. Specifically, the Petition does not demonstrate that the proposed Elliott/Jacob combination would teach or suggest either limitation [1.e] or limitation [1.a] of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, the Elliott/Jacob combination does not teach or suggest the commensurate limitations in independent claims 6 and 11. Compare Ex. 1001, 13:42–14:5, 14:31–15:5, 15:38–16:21.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer science or a comparable field of study, plus at least three years of professional experience in advertisement delivery systems or other relevant industry experience. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 79. Patent Owner does not offer a competing formulation, stating that “[f]or purposes of this preliminary response only, Patent Owner applies the same skill level proposed by Petitioner.” Prelim. Resp. 12. We find Petitioner’s formulation to be consistent with the evidence of record at this stage of the proceeding, including the asserted prior art and the ’296 Patent, and, accordingly, we adopt and apply that definition for purposes of this Decision. B.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that no express constructions of the terms identified by Petitioner are needed 6 For the term “recording a request identifier associated with the request,” Petitioner asserts that it is unclear which “request” is at issue, Pet. 7–8, while Patent Owner argues that “the ‘request’ refers to the ‘request for content to be used within the registered application program’ as described in claim element 1.h.” Prelim. Resp. 13. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that it is not necessary for us to construe this term for purposes of this Decision. 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)). C.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“as obvious over the combination of Elliott and Jacob. Pet. 9–60. Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s mapping of the cited prior art to four limitations in independent claim 1 (and the commensurate limitations in independent claims 6 and 11): limitations [1.a], [1.b], [1.d], and [1.e]. Prelim. Resp. 14– 39. Patent Owner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Elliott with the teachings of Jacob. Id. at 39– 46. We agree with Patent Owner that the proposed combination does not teach or suggest elements [1.a] and [1.e], for the reasons discussed below. Because the absence of these two elements from the cited prior art is a sufficient basis for denying institution, we do not address Patent Owner’s remaining arguments.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,433,296 - Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00713 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Kelly, alone or with Paulsen, renders any challenged claim obvious.
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 and the preliminary response shows “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 and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to provide adequate evidence and analysis to show that Kelly discloses storing the identified user input in Kelly’s system. For instance, the portion of Kelly relied upon in the Petition describes how user input provides a particular game command to game processor 12, and game processor 12 interprets and uses this input to influence game states and game events. Ex. 1005, 10:12– 15. The portion of Kelly makes no mention of storing the user input. Petitioner also cites generally to other portions of Kelly with insufficient explanation of their relevance. Pet. 22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 136 (citing 1:44–46, 9:62–66, 46:32–37, 46:49–52). These cited passages describe generally that a computer, on which games are played, includes a video screen and buttons, and that user input is provided to a game unit to influence game events and/or provide particular game commands to the computer. Ex. 1005, 1:44–46, 9:62–66, 46:32–37, 46:49–52. Petitioner fails to sufficiently show how any of these passages describes storing user input, such as button presses, in Kelly’s system.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“At this stage of the proceeding, there is no evidentiary dispute about the level of ordinary skill in the art.6 Based on the testimony of Mr. Crevelt, 6 Patent Owner “disagrees with the proposed level of skill” but asserts that “under any level of skill a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not understand the asserted Grounds to raise any unpatentability issues.” Prelim. least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering, with at least three years of experience in game development. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102–103). Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Id. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted above is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’607 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the limited record.” slip op. at 11
Nonecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,501,607 - Exactech, Inc. v. Zimmer, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00840 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 18–21 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that DeOrio and Stulberg rendered the claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“press-fit or screwed to the tibia. Pet. 33. Petitioner and its declarant, Mr. Drewry, rely on column six, lines 28–33 and Figure 4 to support the contention that “DeOrio discloses an intramedullary rod 28 that is secured to the tibia by being press-fit or screwed into a bore drilled into the intramedullary canal of the tibia.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1004, 6:28–33, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50, 73); Ex. 1003 ¶ 73 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:28–33, Fig. 4). However, DeOrio makes no such disclosure of a press-fit or screwed connection between the intermedullary rod and the tibia. The relevant portion of column six discloses only that “a bore is drilled into the intramedullary canal of a patient’s tibia.” Ex. 1004, 6:30–31. Figure 4 illustrates shaft 30 of intermedullary rod 28 extending into the tibia, presumably in the bore drilled therein. DeOrio does not provide details regarding how the intermedullary rod is positioned within the bore, and certainly makes no disclosure of a press-fit or screwed connection as asserted by Petitioner. Thus, DeOrio does not support Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that DeOrio discloses or teaches a fastener as recited in claim 18. Petitioner’s reliance on Stulberg to teach a computer-assisted tracking system does not correct this deficiency. See Pet. 38–41. Therefore, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 18 or its dependent claims 19–21 would have been obvious in view of DeOrio and Stulberg.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,029,477 - PTAB · Jul 14, 2022 · IPR2022-00411 · APJ Paul J Korniczky · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11, or 13 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“authority to institute an inter partes review if “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) (2018). After considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and other evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we deny Petitioner’s request to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11, and 13 of the ’690 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“2 The substantive discussion in Petitioner’s three declarations are essentially identical to each other and to the Petition. For example, pages 40–74 of the Petition are essentially identical to a single paragraph in each of the declarations –– Hopkins Decl. ¶ 88 on pages 54–92, Keough Decl. ¶ 88 on pages 63–97, and Denton Decl. ¶ 65 on pages 46–81. Thus, we question whether the declarations provide independent analysis and we give the declarations little, if any, weight. See Intex Recreation Corp. et al. v. Team Worldwide Corp., IPR2018-00875, Paper 129 at 40, n. 15 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2019) (“We further note that Dr. Stevick’s testimony is nearly identical to the language appearing in the Patent Owner Response, down to the case citation. This identity in language causes us to attribute less weight to a declarant’s testimony.” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s definition is unclear. Prelim. Resp. 14. Petitioner’s definition includes unclear and subjective requirements such as that the person of ordinary skill in the art have (a) worked “long enough to be aware of” certain items, including unexplained “primary existing RV features,” (b) familiarity with unexplained “common terminology,” (c) “good mechanical aptitude,” (d) “good spatial perception,” (e) “significant experience” with a wide variety of roles, and (f) “sufficient awareness of the various governmental regulations applicable to RVs.” Id. (citing Pet. 18–20). Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’690 patent. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“While we generally agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a truss and beam, as used in the ’690 patent, are two different structures, serve different purposes, and provide different benefits to the overall design of a chassis, Patent Owner identifies the function, but not the structure, of a truss and beam. After considering the extrinsic and intrinsic evidence, we construe: (1) a beam to be a “body, with one dimension large compared with the other dimensions, configured to carry lateral loads (perpendicular to the large and bending dimension) and bending movements;” and (2) a truss to be a “frame built from members in tension and compression.” These definitions are consistent with the support structures shown in Figures 7 and 9 and discussed in column 3, lines 21–48 of the Specification. Referring to Figures 7 and 9, for example, truss 93C is a frame built from members in tension and compression and beam 93D has one large dimension and supports loads applied to its perpendicular axis. In addition, third section 93 of chassis 90 has beams, not trusses. Ex. 1001, 3:26–28.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,046,690 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01521 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 9–11, 19–21, and 29–30 were obvious over Paxton and Sutton.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“unpatentable under § 103 as obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See Pet. 6, 16–56. For the reasons described below, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“or why its proposed Paxton-Sutton combination would generate rules and provision the rules ‘responsive to correlating,’ as required by the Challenged Claims.” Prelim. Resp. 43. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require “generating, by the computing system and based on the correlating, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the host located in the first network.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” the determined correlation.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2–3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Claim Construction The parties do not dispute any claim constructions (see Pet. 14–15; Prelim. Resp. 41), we find no terms that need to be construed to resolve any issues, and, accordingly, we do not construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,560,176 - ROKU, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2022 · PGR2021-00111 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the challenged patent was not eligible for post-grant review; it found the priority applications supported claims 6 and 19 and did not reach the § 101 ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the above reasons, we are persuaded that the ’031 patent’s priority applications (pre-AIA applications) provide written description support for the claim limitation that “that the “output system” (claim 6) or “output device” (claim 19) can be an “Internet appliance.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that claims 6 and 19 have an effective filing date after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, claims 6 and 19 do not render the ’031 patent eligible for post-grant review under AIA § 6(f)(2)(A). Accordingly, the information presented in the Petition does not establish that the ’031 patent is eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“Finally, the definition of output device in the priority ’765 Application (as in the Specification of the ’031 patent) is that an “[o]utput device [] is an electronic system capable of outputting digital content … Any device capable of playing or reading digital content in voice (e.g., music, speech) or data (e.g., text, document) is also a possible output device.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (alterations in original) (quoting Ex. 1011 (’765 application) ¶ 89, Ex. 1001, 16:29–41). An Internet appliance does fall within that definition. The ’765 Application also contemplates that an output device is a network device accessible through an IP address. See Ex. 1011, 14 (referring to “[i]dentification of an output device” by “IP address”). Put another way, the priority application adequately describes a device fitting the description of” slip op. at 14
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,846,031 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2022 · PGR2021-00108 · APJ Aaron W Moore · PGR · Institution
Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable, including because the asserted combination did not link rule generation to the packet correlation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Obviousness Analysis A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, primarily: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.6 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–2, 7–8, 10, 12–13, and 17–18 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See Pet. 6, 18–64. For the reasons described below, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2-3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’797 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner argues that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “determining . . . a first plurality of log entries” and “determining . . . a second plurality of log entries” is “identifying” or “ascertaining” log entries.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he terms “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the first plurality of packets received by the network device,” and “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the second plurality of packets transmitted by the network device” (“provisioning rules”) . . . should be given their plain and ordinary meaning—rules configured to identify packets.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Neither party, however, argues that the prior art arguments presented in the Petition turn on the construction of these terms. Instead, it appears that they are raised as claim construction issues only because Petitioner is challenging the language under Section 112. We will discuss the Section 112 arguments below, but do not see a dispute about the constructions offered by the parties above the makes a difference in the prior art analysis and, therefore, do not construe these terms at this time. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“respect to this limitation for several reasons, including that Petitioner’s “alleged rule generation and provisioning” is responsive to detecting malicious activity, not “based on the determined correlation.” Prelim. Resp. 38. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require “generating, by the computing system and based on the determined correlation, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the first host.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” the determined correlation.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,931,797 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 16, 2022 · IPR2021-01151 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–24 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“respect to this limitation for several reasons including that Petitioner’s “alleged rule generation and provisioning is responsive to detecting malicious activity, not ‘responsive to the correlating.’” Prelim. Resp. 27–28. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require that “responsive to the correlating of . . . packets transmitted by the network device with . . . packets received by the network device: generating . . . based on the correlating, one or more rules.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” and “responsive to” the correlation of packets.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“respect to this limitation for several reasons including that Petitioner’s “alleged rule generation and provisioning is responsive to detecting malicious activity, not ‘responsive to the correlating.’” Prelim. Resp. 27–28. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require that “responsive to the correlating of . . . packets transmitted by the network device with . . . packets received by the network device: generating . . . based on the correlating, one or more rules.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” and “responsive to” the correlation of packets.” slip op. at 24
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,659,573 - Helen Of Troy Limited v. Tomy International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2022 · IPR2021-01208 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–21 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation by Song or obviousness over Song alone, with Kilion, or with Kassai.
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 and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’176 patent “would be someone with a Bachelor’s degree in industrial design or furniture design with a focus on designing adjustable or reconfigurable furniture, or with one to two years of experience designing adjustable furniture or other products for infants or children.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner indicates that it “does not submit a different level of ordinary skill than the Petitioner.” Prelim. Resp. 11. 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 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that it “does not believe any special claim constructions are required for the Board to conclude that the asserted prior art renders the challenged claims unpatentable.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner generally agrees, stating that “the Board does not need to construe the claims to deny institution.” Prelim. Resp. 11. We determine that for the purposes of this Decision, it is unnecessary to expressly construe these claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only terms in controversy must be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that Patent Owner has the better position. With respect to Petitioner’s annotated versions of Song’s Figures 2 and 3, we agree that Petitioner’s arguments are not supported. To be sure, drawings may be relied upon for the purposes of anticipation. In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 953 (CCPA 1931) (“Description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words.” (citation omitted)). Nonetheless, an ambiguous reference cannot anticipate a claim. Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017). With respect to Figure 3, Song does not expressly teach that the bottom portion of water tank 3 is rigid. Rather, Song teaches that water tank 3 is made with foldable wall 2 that can be folded inward. Ex. 1005, 3. The support legs are also foldable to the inside of support levers 4 and each part can be joined and affixed in a small volume. Id. In other words, the walls, legs, and levers are folded together into a small volume to make the bathtub “convenient to carry.” Id. As such, we agree with Patent Owner that Figure 3 may very well depict the folded bathtub with a taut or folded wall (including the tank bottom) rather than a rigid material. The point, here, though is that we cannot tell from Figure 3 why the tank bottom is depicted as it is shown. Moreover, Song’s express description of the folded bathtub shown in Figure 3 does not support Petitioner’s position that the straight tank bottom must be rigid. Similarly, it is ambiguous as to whether Figure 2 uses cross-hatching to depict a rigid material for any illustrated structural components. Indeed, the left-side leg attachment of Figure 2 shows white dots against black. Id. at Fig. 2. But at the opposite side, the companion leg attachment near “6” does not show the same pattern. Id. Moreover, lid body 9, which is made from a synthetic resin, has no cross-hatching. Id. Further, the pattern presented in the magnified version (provided by Patent Owner) of Figure 2 shows uneven and inconsistent markings at the bottom of water tank 3. Thus, it is unclear whether the identified portion at the tank bottom contains any cross-hatching or intentional markings. Likewise, even if we were to apply purported drafting conventions (e.g., MPEP § 608.02) to a Japanese patent application, the relied upon markings shown in Figure 2 still do not show cross-hatching “with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.” Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,545,176 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01154 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–27 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that either asserted Jungck-based obviousness combination rendered the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“c. Summary of Claim 1 In sum, Petitioner does not explain how the edge cache devices contribute or detract from Jungck’s ability to teach or suggest the “entire boundary” and “all traffic” limitations of the challenged claims. The evidence of device 900 and claims of collateral estoppel do not remedy this deficiency. In the absence of such evidence, Petitioner has failed to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge.” See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Jungck and Wood meets the limitation of “[a] method of filtering packets at a packet security gateway, of a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network protected by the packet security gateway . . . comprising: a first set of packet filtering rules to be applied to all network traffic traversing the boundary.”” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition’s avoidance of the operation of edge caches when edge caches are important in the processing of traffic flowing across the boundary undermines this ground of the Petition. If Petitioner wished to rely on an embodiment or configuration in which the edge caches were irrelevant, the edge caches were redundant to the edge server, or the edge caches were unnecessary, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to explain sufficiently how and why that was the case. Petitioner was aware of the edge caches because it appears to have omitted all references to them in the Petition yet did not explain why this was done. Additionally, although Petitioner’s declarant does include references to edge caches, its declarant also does not explain sufficiently the relevance of those edge caches. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 148, 212, 214, 215, 227, 323. Additionally, Petitioner’s references to collateral estoppel do not relieve Petitioner from the burden to describe its contentions regarding obviousness in the Petition.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Our reviewing court has held that “[c]ollateral estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1351–1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). “It is well established that collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, applies in the administrative context.” MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted); Webpower, Inc. v. WAG ACQUISITION, LLC, Case IPR2016- 01239, Paper 21 at 26–28 (PTAB Dec. 26, 2017). “Issue preclusion [i.e., collateral estoppel] is appropriate only if: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377 (citing Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313, 91 S. Ct. 1501, 28 L.Ed. 2d 788 (1971) (finding collateral estoppel applies to a patentee who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of a patent in a prior federal case.)). Patent Owner points out that the claims at issue in IPR2018-01443, 1444, 1513 (“prior IPRs”) did not include the “entire boundary” or “all traffic” limitations. Prelim. Resp. 26–27, 32, 44. We agree. Collateral estoppel does not apply because there are differences between the claim limitation at issue here and the adjudicated claim limitations at issue in the prior IPRs. See In re Freeman, 30 F.3d at 1465; accord MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377–1378; cf. In re Arunachalam, 709 F. App’x 699, 702 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (finding collateral estoppel applies to an adjudicated claim that is not “materially different” than the adjudicated claims).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner requests that the preamble of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 be treated as limiting. Prelim. Resp. 16–17. These preambles provide antecedent basis for “packet security gateway,” “boundary,” “network,” and “one or more other networks.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 20:64–21:2, 22:13–18, 23:35–42). The preambles also recite the “plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a [protected] network,” which is “essential to understand” the “all traffic” limitation in the body of these claims and thus ‘“give life, meaning, and vitality”’ to the claims. Id. (citing Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). The preambles provide the context for the body of the independent claims by defining the arrangement of the “plurality of packet security gateways” relative to the “boundary” of the protected network and thus the basis for applying “packet filtering rules . . . to all network traffic traversing the boundary.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 20:64–21:8). The “entire interface” limitation also was relied on during prosecution of the parent ’437 Patent’s claims to distinguish them from the prior art. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2008, 254–61; Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808–09). Petitioner does not dispute the preambles are limiting. Pet. 18–21, 37. For, the reasons above, we construe the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as limiting. After review of the current record, we conclude that, other than determining the preambles are limiting, no express claim construction is necessary to determine whether to institute review of the challenged claims. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,785,266
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.