- Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00252 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 8–23 obvious over any asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024); Paper 8 (referral to panel after no discretionary denial briefing under the Interim Processes memorandum). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 78–82). Patent Owner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 2001 § IV.C). The differences between the parties’ definitions are minor, as recognized by Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 104), and we do not discern any meaningful differences based on the preliminary record. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’088 patent and the asserted prior art. Notwithstanding, we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“obviousness contentions based on Ellis and Spivey rely expressly on the use of a “known webserver” to perform the “transmitting first instructions” limitations excerpted above. See Pet. 28–34. Yet Petitioner does not specify how such a webserver would be integrated with the other elements from Ellis and Spivey cited by Petitioner. At best, Petitioner provides a background section on the known use of webservers (see id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 49–53, 127–134)), but this does not provide a rationale for integrating a webserver in the Ellis–Spivey combination. We also have considered Petitioner’s cited testimony from Dr. Wicker supporting this background section. The first cited portion, which is located at paragraphs 49–53 of Dr. Wicker’s declaration, supports the premises in the background section, but does not include a rationale for adding a webserver to the Ellis– Spivey combination. See Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 49–53. The second cited portion, which is located at paragraphs 127–134 of Dr. Wicker’s declaration, includes a rationale for modifying the Ellis–Spivey combination to include a webserver.3 See Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 127–134. But that rationale is completely 3 The cited rationale in Dr. Wicker’s declaration appears to be tailored to support Petitioner’s obviousness contentions in IPR2025-00251, where unaddressed in the Petition. We decline to assume that Petitioner adopts Dr. Wicker’s testimony about the rationale as its position, because that would amount to improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 35–36 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (citing Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative)) (stating that “parties that incorporate expert testimony by reference in their petitions, motions, or replies without providing explanation of such testimony risk having the testimony not considered by the Board”).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,871,088 - Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00251 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because neither asserted obviousness combination showed a reasonable likelihood of success, chiefly due to unsupported webserver teachings and motivation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“c. Analysis We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s rationale for adding a facilitator- type webserver to the Ellis–Spivey combination based on “POSA’s Knowledge.” First, Petitioner’s combination of Spivey with Ellis is already allegedly based on improving latency issues via the incorporation of Spivey’s LDSD and MQSD in Ellis’s system. See Pet. 22–24. Petitioner touts that this modification would result in reduced latency to a time period “at least two orders of magnitude shorter than conventional time periods of legacy devices.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 96). But the Petition does not establish whether this latency improvement would or could be maintained when adding a separate webserver, as it has proposed. And Dr. Rubin testifies that the inclusion of an additional webserver—an additional component—is likely to create latency insofar as it must receive, process, and/or handle data. Ex. 2001 ¶ 305. We are persuaded by Dr. Rubin’s testimony, and we find that adding a webserver to Petitioner’s existing Ellis– Spivey combination tends to undermine Petitioner’s foundational rationale for combining these references, which is the reduction of latency. See Pet. 23.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Third, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 49) that Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have added a facilitator-type webserver to the Ellis–Spivey combination when neither reference teaches or suggests a webserver for facilitating communication between a client and a socket server. Dr. Wicker’s supporting testimony stresses that “webservers were well-known components in streaming systems that were useful for facilitating communication between client devices and socket servers, and client devices and media sources.” Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 128–132. But “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner fails to provide any persuasive reason with a rational underpinning why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to add a webserver to the existing Ellis–Spivey combination.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The differences between the parties’ definitions are minor, as recognized by Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 104), and we do not discern any meaningful differences based on the preliminary record. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’088 patent and the asserted prior art. Notwithstanding, we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 8. Petitioner also argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “socket” is “a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first event information is provided to a VCD [viewer client device].” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 163). Thus, Petitioner argues that a “first event socket corresponding to the first event information” is “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to VCDs.” Id. Patent Owner states that “[e]xcept for the ‘socket’ term for which Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s construction . . . for purposes of [its] preliminary response, Patent Owner agrees that no terms require construction and construes all other terms consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,871,088 - Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 31, 2025 · IPR2024-01434 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the single claimed design was obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“shown that Chen686, alone or in combination with the various secondary references, teaches or suggests a camera having the same overall visual appearance of the claimed design. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging the patentability of the ’435 patent’s claim over Chen686 and the asserted secondary references.” slip op. at 30
- Other 314aNot reached
“These deficiencies in analysis raise the question of whether the Petition adequately identifies the number of actual challenges, and evidence supporting each, with the degree of particularity required of petitions in our forum. The Petition does not explain why so many grounds are necessary under the circumstances or why the Board should impose on Patent Owner the burden of defending against so many challenges. See generally Pet. An inter partes review based on 24 distinct grounds raised against a single claim, supported by analysis lacking in particularity, potentially burdens Patent Owner unduly and makes inefficient use of the Board’s resources. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019),22 56 (“The AIA was ‘designed to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.’” (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 40 (2011), 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 69 (Post grant reviews were meant to be “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation”)). Because we understand enough of the Petition’s analysis to address each group of asserted grounds on the merits, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based solely on this issue.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner submits that a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in industrial design or an equivalent field, or two years of experience designing cameras or camera housings.” Pet. 11 (citing Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 22–24). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposal regarding a designer of ordinary skill in the art. See Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 22–24.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In its claim construction section, Petitioner states that the ’435 patent “encompasses a rectangular body with flat faces, a rectangular lens cover extending outward from the front of the body, rectangular buttons/access elements, and rectangles for displays” and “[a]s a whole . . . gives an ordinary designer an overall visual impression of a rectangular design for a camera/camera housing.” Pet. 12 (citing Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 25–26). These descriptions are incredibly general and do not provide an adequate understanding of the overall visual appearance of the claimed design. Moreover, we do not find them helpful in our analysis and, therefore, do not adopt them as a claim construction. Patent Owner does not explicitly address claim construction. See” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham - A&A Global Imports, Inc. v. Lerman Container CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01138 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the single claim would have been obvious over any of the four asserted reference combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging the patentability of the ’151 patent’s claim. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner submits that a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in Industrial Design, Mechanical Engineering, or related field and approximately 5 years of professional experience in the field designing consumer products.” Pet. 42 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 48). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed definition. Prelim. Resp. 19. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposal regarding a designer of ordinary skill in the art. See Fletcher Decl. ¶ 48; Rake Decl. ¶ 29.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“and Petitioner’s failure to persuasively explain why the particular proportion depicted in the ’151 patent is preferable to any other, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that this proportion is primarily functional and should not be considered as part of the ornamental design. See, e.g., LA Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“When there are several ways to achieve the function of an article of manufacture, the design of the article is more likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose.”). Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that the differences in proportion between Neutrogena and the claimed design contribute significantly to the overall visual impression of the design. See Prelim. Resp. 28 (“[T]he two designs considered as a whole present dramatically different visual appearances.”), 33–36 (“To get from the Neutrogena jar design . . . to the design of the D ‘151 patent would require entirely changing the proportions of the jar—from a short neck with a tall base to a tall neck with a short base . . . .”). For example, Patent Owner creates an image showing that simply changing the height of the Neutrogena jar neck to have the same neck-height to base-height ratio as the ’151 patent without changing the other dimensions of the jar would yield a “ridiculous result.” Id. at 37. We agree that the two images, reproduced below, do not convey the same overall visual impression. This figure contains two images side by side. On the left is a side view drawing of the claimed jar. On the right is a front side image of the Neutrogena jar with the image manipulated to show a neck to base proportion equivalent to that of the claimed jar drawing. Prelim. Resp. 38. The images above show a figure from the ’151 patent, above left, and Patent Owner’s created image of Neutrogena, above right, with only the neck height modified to match the proportion of neck to base height shown in the ’151 patent. Although we do not necessarily agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the created Neutrogena image represents the proposed combination asserted in the Petition, or that the modified image created by Patent Owner is accurate, we do agree with Patent Owner that the image of the modified Neutrogena jar illustrates that the proportion of neck height to base height contributes to ornamental aspects of the claimed jar and significantly affects the overall visual impression.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We find these aspects of the design significantly affect the overall visual impression of an otherwise simple design, particularly in an otherwise crowded art. Petitioner addresses these differences by stating that a designer of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that different degrees of radius for the concave bottom surface would be a design choice for volume and accessibility to the contents, especially together with the radiused transition between the sidewall and bottom surface.” Pet. 56 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 98). However, the present record does not support a finding that, even though other interior compartment shapes and depths are available, functionality dictates a certain shape and depth. Petitioner cites no other prior art that shows an interior compartment with a shape and depth equivalent to that shown in the ’151 patent. See Pet. 28–29 (showing annotated versions of Huang’s drawings, which do not clearly show the shape or depth of the interior compartment), 63 (proposing to modify Huang’s two chamber interior compartment with that of Canamasas Puigbo), 85–88 (showing the McKernan Jar drawings, which do not indicate the shape or depth of the interior compartment); Ex. 2002, 13 (explaining that the interior of Zamberlan is different in shape and depth than the claimed design). We are not persuaded to the contrary by Petitioner’s expert testimony. Mr. Fletcher testifies that Canamasas Puigbo “explicitly discloses a concave bottom surface in an article having more visually similar design, which would provide ample motivation to incorporate the feature.” Fletcher Decl. ¶ 98 (emphasis added). Thus, Mr. Fletcher appears to agree that the shape of the Canamasas Puigbo’s internal compartment is noticeably different than that of the ’151 patent. Mr. Fletcher does not address why a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have overlooked these differences or found them so minimal as to not affect the overall impression of the resulting modified jar. For example, Mr. Fletcher does not support this conclusion with any objective evidence, such as pointing to other prior art with an interior compartment the same shape and depth as that of the ’151 patent. Nor does Mr. Fletcher otherwise explain why a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to use the particular shape and depth claimed by the ’151 patent as opposed to all other possible configurations. See, id. ¶¶ 83–101. Moreover, as noted above, “expert testimony cannot take the place of disclosure from patents or printed publications.” 2019 Trial Practice Guide at 36. Accordingly, even after combining the visual features of Neutrogena and Canamasas Puigbo as proposed by Petitioner, the record evidence does not support Petitioner’s assertion that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Neutrogena such that its internal compartment is the same shape and depth as claimed by the ’151 patent.” slip op. at 32
§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham - Unified Patents Inc. v. Synchview Technologies, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 28, 2020 · IPR2019-00470 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained denial of institution because the record lacked evidence to determine the scope of “DVR” and whether the prior art met that limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“In summary, the record does not include sufficient information for a determination of the claim scope of “DVR.” It is Petitioner’s burden to show, in the Petition, “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Without such an explanation of Petitioner’s position and supporting evidence, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood in demonstrating that the prior art meets this limitation. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (reversing the Board’s decision of obviousness because it relied on “what at best are speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims”).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In summary, the record does not include sufficient information for a determination of the claim scope of “DVR.” It is Petitioner’s burden to show, in the Petition, “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Without such an explanation of Petitioner’s position and supporting evidence, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood in demonstrating that the prior art meets this limitation. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (reversing the Board’s decision of obviousness because it relied on “what at best are speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims”). We are unable to conclude, therefore, that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In summary, the record does not include sufficient information for a determination of the claim scope of “DVR.” It is Petitioner’s burden to show, in the Petition, “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Without such an explanation of Petitioner’s position and supporting evidence, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood in demonstrating that the prior art meets this limitation. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (reversing the Board’s decision of obviousness because it relied on “what at best are speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims”).” slip op. at 5
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 6,788,882 - Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 12, 2020 · IPR2019-01558 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Microsoft had not shown a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 9, 36, or 37 unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“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 determine Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any challenged claim. Therefore, we deny the Petition for an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“5 Citing the testimony of Dr. Lavian, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the ’622 patent “would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering” with “at least two years of experience in the development and operation of network communication systems (or equivalent degree or experience).” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is improper because it lacks an upper bound in both the factor of educational achievement and the factor of work experience,” but notwithstanding those defects, “Patent Owner does not provide its own definition because, even applying the definitions proposed in the Petition, Petitioner has not met its burden.” Prelim. Resp. 11-12. For purposes of this Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment. 6 Patent Owner does not contend in its Preliminary Response that any such secondary considerations are present.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(Ex. 1004, 23:18–20), we find no teaching or suggestion in the combination of Zydney and Shinder of the server assigning “an IP address” to the software agent (or to a device running the software agent). We also find no persuasive support for Petitioner’s contrary conclusions in Dr. Lavian’s testimony, which merely repeats the arguments in the Petition and cites the same portions of Zydney and Shinder. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 249–253 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 15:1–2, 15:13–14, 16:7–10, 23:11–12, 23:18–21; Ex. 1005, 78, 86–88, Fig. 8-3), with Pet. 42–45 (same).8” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“juncture, we determine, for substantially the reasons articulated by Patent Owner, that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its contention that claim 1 is unpatentable over Zydney, Shinder, and Kirkwood. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 35–36), Zydney discloses storing user names and passwords only at a central server (Ex. 1004, 23:14-24:6) and storing lists of users only on originator devices (id. at 14:17–19, 34:1–3). Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Zydney to store all three of a user name, a password, and a list of other users in “each” of the user records of “a” user database, as recited in claim 1, whether that database would reside at a central server or at originators’ devices. Moreover, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Lavian—whose testimony in this regard merely repeats the argument in the Petition nearly verbatim— sufficiently explains what purported “advantages” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated would come from making such a combination. See Pet. 63. Petitioner does not explain, on the one hand, how Zydney’s registration and authentication would function if user names and passwords were stored in databases at originator devices rather than at a central server or, on the other hand, how Zydney’s peer-to-peer communications would function if buddy lists were stored with user names and passwords in a database at a central server rather than at originator devices. We, accordingly, are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that the suggested modifications “would have been nothing more than a simple combination of known and commonly used technologies . . . by known methods without changing their respective functions.” See Pet. 63.” slip op. at 26
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,724,622 - Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2019 · IPR2019-00989 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied on claims 1, 4, 7-9, 18, 21, 24-26, 36, 38, 39, 42, 45, and 48 because Kobata did not teach the required identifier placement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and 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.” Taking into account the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the information presented does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Microsoft will prevail in challenging the patentability of claims 1, 4, 7–9, 18, 21, 24–26, 36, 38, 39, 42, 45, and 48 of the ’636 patent. We, therefore, decline to 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
“Each of the independent claims of the ’636 patent recites “a second instance of the digital asset” with a “second unique identifier” and requires “the second instance of the digital asset include[s] the digital content and at least one other portion that does not include the digital content.” Ex. 1001, 1 On October 11, 2018, the USPTO revised its rules to harmonize the Board’s claim construction standard with that used in federal district court. Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42). This rule change applies to petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018. Id. 20:60–65 (claim 1), 22:34–39 (claim 18), 24:11–16. Further, the claims recite “the second instance of the digital asset include[s] the second unique identifier embedded in the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset.” Id. at 20:67–21:3, 22:41–44, 24:17–20. We agree with Uniloc that “the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset” refers to “the at least one other portion that does not include the digital content.” See Prelim. Resp. 5. Thus, we agree with Uniloc that the plain language of the claims requires “the second unique identifier” be “embedded” in a portion of the asset that “does not include the digital content” and is not, itself, embedded in the digital content. In fact, we see no other reasonable way to interpret this language. Further, we see nothing in the Specification that indicates the patentee intended an alternate meaning for any of the words at issue. For example, the Specification describes creating a first instantiation of the digital asset with “an original offset and serial number embedded within the digital content,” but does not specifically describe where the serial number resides in the second instantiation of the digital asset, noting only that “instead of merely copying the digital content as part of the transfer, the present invention creates a separate instantiation to facilitate tracking of each transfer (or transaction) within the system 100.” Ex. 1001, 14:22–33; see also id. at 15:25–30 (“At step 326 Customer Client Server module 124 marks the digital asset file with the new serial number and offset preferably using the same steganographic technique . . . and then stores the digital asset in a form suitable for later retrieval and play on the user’s system.”). Thus, we see nothing in the Specification demonstrating that the claims are meant to cover anything other than the plain meaning—the second unique identifier is embedded in a portion of the asset that does not include the digital content.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“Nowhere, however, does Microsoft explain how “ID portion 418” is embedded in a portion of the asset that does not include the digital content. To the contrary, Figure 4 of Kobata shows 418 to be embedded within Digital Content Data 410. Indeed, this fact is emphasized by Microsoft’s annotations of the Figure. See Pet. 33 (showing ID Portion 418 in purple completely surrounded by Digital Content Data 410 in yellow). Based on this flaw in the Petition, we cannot conclude that Microsoft has established a reasonable likelihood that a skilled artisan would understand Kobata to teach or suggest the second unique identifier is embedded in a portion of the asset that does not include the digital content. Therefore, Microsoft has not shown that Kobata teaches or suggests “the second instance of the digital asset including the second unique identifier embedded in the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset” as recited in the claim.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,706,636 - PTAB · Sep 4, 2019 · IPR2017-00909 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution because the petition did not adequately show motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“In addition, there is no dispute that the annealing protocol employed by the Wu Thesis “prove[d] deleterious to the functionality of the silicon device, particularly to its infrared wavelength absorptance capabilities.” Id. at 15 (citing Pet. 21). Based on these observations, we concluded that the Petitioner did not “adequately explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have sought to anneal the sulfur-doped spiked silicon disclosed by the Wu Thesis in view of the reference’s teachings concerning the characteristics of spiked silicon, and the limitations of annealing such devices.” Id. at 17.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“Hamamatsu’s argument regarding the alleged limitations of passivation by hydrogenation for only healing damage appears to be new. In fact, Hamamatsu’s Petition states that “[a]nnealing typically occurs after a doping process, because the annealing is used to repair damage caused by 7 the doping process, and to ‘activate’ the dopant material in the silicon.” Pet. 4. Hamamatsu did not make a distinction between these two purposes until now, nor have they adequately explained why it matters. As explained in our Decision, the passivation by hydrogenation process as disclosed in the Wu Thesis is used to “cure the structural defects in, and improve the electrical properties of,” the silicon substrate. Decision 18. Even, assuming arguendo, that the passivation by hydrogenation process is not a “full and complete substitute for the annealing process,” this does not change the fact that the Wu Thesis does not suggest any positive effect of annealing on dopant activation or on the electrical properties of spiked silicon. Furthermore, to the extent that annealing was discussed in the Wu Thesis, it had deleterious effects on absorptance.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,080,467 - Google LLC v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 13, 2018 · IPR2017-02202 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because Richardson and Demeyer did not teach determining the claimed account information or software features through physical device recognition.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” which party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“machine parameters include . . . information relating to the device’s software configuration” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “data relating to the client device’s software configuration can contain information regarding features of software that the user of the client device is entitled to use” (Pet. 19 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 52; Ex. 1104 ¶ 22)), we find no support in the cited evidence that Richardson teaches or suggests that any “information regarding features of software that the user of the client device is entitled to use” could be determined by performing physical device recognition. Indeed, as we explained in our earlier Decision, we discern no information regarding “features of software that [a] user is entitled to use” in any of Richardson’s machine parameters cited by Petitioner as examples of “information relating to the device’s software configuration,” namely, “the platform on which a web browser or another application runs,” “unique parameters associated with the firmware in use,” and “software or operating system serial number.” Dec. 17; cf. Pet. 19. Despite Petitioner’s citation to the testimony of its declarant, Mr. James Geier, in support of its argument, the cited testimony in disclosures corresponding to the challenged claim language. Although we agree with Petitioner that “a reference need not use the same terminology to disclose an element” (Req. Reh’g 6 n.1 (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009))), we will not employ the benefit of hindsight from the ’852 patent’s disclosure to find a teaching or suggestion in Richardson. relevant part merely repeats verbatim Petitioner’s argument (compare Ex. 1103 ¶ 52, with Pet. 19) and likewise fails to explain how the cited examples from Richardson would have taught or suggested the claim limitation. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“disclosures corresponding to the challenged claim language. Although we agree with Petitioner that “a reference need not use the same terminology to disclose an element” (Req. Reh’g 6 n.1 (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009))), we will not employ the benefit of hindsight from the ’852 patent’s disclosure to find a teaching or suggestion in Richardson. relevant part merely repeats verbatim Petitioner’s argument (compare Ex. 1103 ¶ 52, with Pet. 19) and likewise fails to explain how the cited examples from Richardson would have taught or suggested the claim limitation. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 9
NonePatents in suitUS 8,239,852 - Google LLC v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 1, 2018 · IPR2017-02080 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google's rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 3–23 because the petition did not show Zydney disclosed the claimed object field.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We have considered Petitioner’s contentions but are not persuaded of any error in our Decision. Our Decision was premised not on a rejection of Petitioner’s proposed formulation of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “object field” limitation recited in claim 3, but instead on Petitioner’s failure to persuade us that Zydney’s “body” maps to the recited object field. A prior art reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Moreover, “[a]nticipation requires that a single reference ‘describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.’” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “For this reason, it has long been understood that ambiguous references do not, as a matter of law, anticipate a claim.” Id. But the disclosure of Zydney relied upon by Petitioner for the object field limitation of claim 3 is, at best, ambiguous.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In our Decision, we found that there was insufficient evidence on the record to support Petitioner’s contention that Zydney’s disclosure of a message “body” expressly discloses the recited object field and, further, that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing that the claimed object field is inherently anticipated by Zydney. Dec. 17. We explained, in particular, that “[a]lthough Zydney discloses that its voice container includes ‘voice data,’ . . . Petitioner has not shown that voice data necessarily would be included in an ‘object field.’” Id. We, accordingly, determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that the object field limitation of claim 3 is disclosed by Zydney.” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“record to support Petitioner’s contention that Zydney’s disclosure of a message “body” expressly discloses the recited object field and, further, that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing that the claimed object field is inherently anticipated by Zydney. Dec. 17. We explained, in particular, that “[a]lthough Zydney discloses that its voice container includes ‘voice data,’ . . . Petitioner has not shown that voice data necessarily would be included in an ‘object field.’” Id. We, accordingly, determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that the object field limitation of claim 3 is disclosed by Zydney.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“recites, in part, “a messaging system communicating with a plurality of instant voice message client systems . . . wherein the messaging system receives an instant voice message from one of the plurality of instant voice message client systems, and wherein the instant voice message includes an object field including a digitized audio file.” Ex. 1001, 24:15–27 (emphasis added). Petitioner alleges that claims 3–8, 11, 13, and 18–21 are anticipated by Zydney1 and that claims 3–23 also are unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of Zydney and certain other references (Pet. 6, 11–68), relying in each of the asserted grounds on Zydney as teaching the recited “object field including a digitized audio field” (id. at 17–19, 38).” slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,724,622
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.