• Netflix, Inc. v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00081 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Netflix had not shown a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 37, or 38 unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’451 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not see a substantial difference between the parties’ proposals. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by 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). However, our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “we consider whether that construction was intended to encompass varying durations during the creating step or the displaying step. In its opinion, the Microsoft court observed that the defendants in that case argued that “before created,” and that “the ‘duration information’ is a parameter that the user can then interact with in order to vary the display of each resource.” Ex. 1014, 22. Patent Owner, the court continued, argued that “all that is required is for the user to maintain control over the actual presentation of the resource during the ‘displaying’ step, and that no duration information need be provided during the ‘creating a show structure of nodes’ step.” Id. at 22–23. The Microsoft court “agree[d] with [Patent Owner] that the user should be able to vary the duration of the content during show structure playback. This is the ‘interactive’ component of the claim.” Id. at 23; see also Prelim. Resp. 29 (arguing that this reasoning supports Patent Owner’s position that “the claim language expressly requires that the end user be able to ‘vary said duration’ for how long resource content currently ‘is being displayed’ to the user in ‘accordance with said show structure’ to which the resource belongs”). Here, the Microsoft court expressly states that the duration is varied during show structure playback, which is a clear reference to claim 1’s step of “displaying a content corresponding to each of said resources automatically in accordance with said show structure.” The Microsoft court “also finds that some duration information must be provided when the show structure of nodes is created,” that “‘parameter’ is a helpful concept for construction,” and that “the ‘duration information’ may be understood to be synonymous with a ‘parameter,’ as that timing information is the variable that will specify how long a particular content will be displayed.” Ex. 1014, 23. Thus, the Microsoft court construed claim 1 to require providing a variable duration parameter in the creating” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther

    “As noted above, the Microsoft court construed “interactively variable duration information” to mean “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1014, 22. The construction itself suggests that the duration information is varied during display, because it is in the context of resources being displayed sequentially and “the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” As to Escobar, Petitioner contends that “[w]hen playing decision lists/timelines in the authoring tool using Button 174 (invoking subroutine E), the user is the viewer of the content.” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:40–45). Thus, Petitioner appears to contend that, during the process of creating a show structure, the creator is a viewer if the creator can view the edited content corresponding to a node as the show structure is being created. Here, Petitioner would satisfy the “viewer” aspect of the Microsoft court’s construction by pointing to a creator viewing a piece of the show structure during the creating step, although Escobar does not teach that the creator can vary the duration of content while viewing it or that durations can be varied while a show structure (as opposed to a node being created) is being displayed in the displaying step, as discussed in more detail below.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,155,451
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01125 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over Henley or Shoham and Richardson.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). While the elements must be arranged in the same way as is recited in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Identity of terminology between the anticipatory prior art reference and the claim is not required. Prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Certain terms recited in the challenged claims were construed during prior litigation of the ’451 patent, i.e., the parent of the challenged ’932 patent. Ex. 1011 (claim construction order in cases involving Microsoft and Apple); Ex. 2009, 5 (clarification of certain claim constructions on summary judgment). Patent Owner advocates that we adopt such prior constructions in this proceeding, and Petitioner “does not dispute” such constructions. Pet. 10–13; Prelim. Resp. 6–8. We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1011, 16–17; Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 7. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in challenged independent claims 1 and 22, as well as in challenged dependent claim 4, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1011, 2–13; Pet. 11–12; Prelim. Resp. 7. Third, we construe “interactively variable duration information,” which is recited in challenged independent claim 1, as well as challenged dependent claims 2 and 26, as “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1011, 22–23; Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 7.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject and two or more years of experience working with computer networks and the accessing and presentation of networked resources to users in the 1996 timeframe.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 51). Petitioner adds that “[t]his description is approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience and vice-versa.” Id. Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately 3-5 years of professional experience with these topics.” Prelim. Resp. 6. In addition, Patent Owner say that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 28). Both parties support their proposals with testimony by their respective experts. See Ex. 1012 ¶ 51; Ex. 2005 ¶ 28. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by 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 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “distinction. See Ex. 2005 ¶ 30 (“Henley discloses a ‘video optimized stream server system 10,’ also referred to as ‘media streamer,’ for use by broadcasters to deliver content to end users, or viewers.”). In particular, Dr. Almeroth observes that, in Figure 1 of Henley, reproduced above, system controller 64 is illustrated graphically as connected to multiple user controls 65, but is shown connected only to a single display 66. Id. ¶ 31. This structure, in combination with Henley’s description of the drawing, leads Dr. Almeroth to conclude that user control 65 “corresponds to a ‘set top box[]’” for an end user, and that system controller 64 corresponds to a separate “‘user interface’ for the operator.” Id. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth points to Henley’s description of system controller 64 as “respond[ing] to inputs from user control set top boxes 65 to cause commands to be generated that enable media streamer 10 to access a requested video presentation.” Id.; Ex. 1013, 8:30–32 (emphasis added). Dr. Almeroth also notes Henley’s explanation that “[s]ystem controller 64 is further provided with a user interface and display facility 66 which enables a user to input commands, such as by hard or soft buttons, and other data to enable an identification of video presentations, the scheduling of video presentations, and control over the playing of a video presentation.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 31; Ex. 1013, 8:33–38. These disclosures by Henley support Dr. Almeroth’s conclusion that “[t]his ‘user interface and display facility 66’ is for an operator—not an end user.” See Ex. 2005 ¶ 31. Dr. Almeroth provides additional reasoning to support this conclusion. For example, Henley explains that “[s]ystem controller 64 responds to inputs from user control set top boxes 65 to cause commands to be generated that enable media streamer 10 to access a requested video presentation.” Ex. 1013, 8:30–32. In light of this, because an end user would interact with the set-top box shown as user control 65, Dr. Almeroth reasons that “it would make no sense” for display 66 to be for the end user. Ex. 2005 ¶ 32. We agree with this reasoning. In addition, Dr. Almeroth observes that Henley describes two types of interfaces for media streamer 10, a command line interface and a graphical user interface. Id. ¶ 33 (citing Ex. 1013, 18:47–50). Because the command line interface can be used for “batch” functionality, Dr. Almeroth reasons, and we agree, that the command line interface is for broadcast operators, rather than for end users. Id. With respect to the graphical user interface shown in Figure 8, reproduced above, Dr. Almeroth further reasons that a person of skill in the art would understand that it relates to operator controls, rather than end-user controls, because Henley specifically describes it as showing keys “used to operate the media streamer.” Id. ¶ 34; Ex. 1013, 4:5– 6. In other words, according to Dr. Almeroth, “[t]he graphical user interface corresponds to the command line interface.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 34. Dr. Almeroth’s reasoning is compelling. Notably, Figure 8 shows “Batch” button 130 and “Import/Export” button 132 to “move video data into and out of the media streamer.” See Ex. 1013, 19:20–22, 19:30–31. As Dr. Almeroth testifies, these are not functions that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be available for end users, but are appropriate for broadcast operators: “None of these commands are consistent with those that would be available to an end user of, e.g., a set top box or pay-per-view system.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 35. In light of this compelling testimony, we agree with Patent Owner and find that “Henley . . . does not describe . . . the end user’s interface or controls.” See Prelim. Resp. 22.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,965,932
• Nichia Corporation / Osram Opto Semiconductors, Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corp.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 15, 2020 · IPR2019-01260 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any anticipation or obviousness challenge to claims 1, 2, 6, and 10.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 21 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Papers 23, 24. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 100(b); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner proposes that the term “base,” recited in independent claim 1 as well as dependent claim 6, be construed to mean “support or foundation,” and that the phrase “integral part of,” recited in dependent claim 2, be construed to mean “a part of a whole.” Pet. 20–24. Patent Owner contends that we “need not rule on Petitioners’ proposed claim constructions, because construction of those terms is not necessary in order to resolve the parties’ dispute.” Prelim. Resp. 8. Although we agree with Patent Owner that resolution of the parties’” slip op. at 8

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

    “dispute does not require construction of “base” or “integral part of,” we find it necessary, in light of the parties’ arguments, to consider the meaning of a “thermally conductive region in solderable thermal contact with the thermally conducting base,” recited in independent claim 1. Neither party addresses this phrase as a matter of claim construction, but both parties implicitly proffer a proposed construction in their arguments. See Pet. 41– 43; Prelim. Resp. 35–40. In particular, Petitioner takes the position that “the term ‘solderable’ does not mean that the ‘thermally conductive region’ is to be ‘solderable’ to the ‘thermally conducting base’; rather, ‘solderable’ requires the thermally conductive region to be ‘solderable’ to another structure outside the assembly.” Pet. 41–42. Conversely, Patent Owner contends that “the modifier ‘solderable’ in ‘solderable thermal contact’ . . . applies to the relationship between (1) the ‘thermally conductive region’ and (2) the ‘thermally conducting base.’” Prelim. Resp. 36. First, we find that the plain meaning of the phrase supports Patent Owner’s proposal. The adjectives “solderable” and “thermal” are grammatically parallel in the phrase, and there is no apparent reason why those adjectives do not each equivalently modify the noun “contact,” such that the “contact” between the thermally conductive region and the thermally conducting base must be both “solderable” and “thermal.” See Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (Patent Owner asserting that “[t]his term plainly requires ‘solderable” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,528,421
• Nichia Corporation / Osram Opto Semiconductors, Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corp.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 15, 2020 · IPR2019-01487 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claim 7 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Andrews anticipated or rendered the claim obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “But this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim as we have construed it. In particular, in advancing this contention, Petitioner does not present any argument or evidence that thermal contact pad 36 of Andrews is in “solderable thermal contact” with the combination of plate 51 and insulating film 49. Rather, because we agree with Patent Owner that “‘solderable thermal contact’ requires solderability between the region and the base, not some other unclaimed structure,” we also agree with Patent Owner that “the Petition fails to show that Andrews teaches a ‘thermally conducti[ve] region’ solderable to a ‘thermally conducting base.’” Prelim. Resp. 30. In addition, Patent Owner specifically addresses the possibility that Andrews’s thermal contact pad 36 and insulating film 49 are in solderable contact, notwithstanding the omission of such an argument in the Petition. See id. at 30–31. Patent Owner observes that the bottom layer of what Petitioner identifies as the recited “thermally conducting base” is an electrically insulating film, and what Petitioner identifies as the recited “thermally conductive region” is an electrical conductor, “such as gold, silver, [or] tin.” Id. at 31 (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 70). Patent Owner asserts that “[i]t is not possible to solder a conductor such as gold, silver, or tin to a nonconductive insulating film.” Id. at 31. That assertion is consistent with a technical dictionary’s definition of “solderability” as “[t]hat property of a metal surface to be readily wetted by molten solder.” See Ex. 3001 (definition by The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms) (emphasis added). In light of these considerations, we conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claim 7 as anticipated by Andrews.” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied

    “F. Summary Because we conclude that the Petition does not present a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that any challenged claim is unpatentable, we also deny the Motion for Joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (permitting joinder only where a properly filed petition “warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314”). We need not reach Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See Prelim. Resp. 47–56. III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder is denied.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that the level of skill in the art is apparent from the cited art and that such a person “would have had at least a B.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field, and four years’ experience designing semiconductor—including LED—packages.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–33). Patent Owner does not dispute this articulation, which we adopt for this Decision. See Prelim. Resp. 8.” slip op. at 9

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

    “First, we find that the plain meaning of the phrase supports Patent Owner’s proposal. The adjectives “solderable” and “thermal” are grammatically parallel in the phrase, and there is no apparent reason why those adjectives do not each equivalently modify the noun “contact,” such that the “contact” between the thermally conductive region and the thermally conducting base must be both “solderable” and “thermal.” See Prelim. Resp. 25 (Patent Owner asserting that “[t]his term plainly requires ‘solderable thermal contact between a thermally conductive region and the thermally conductive base’”). Second, we find that the prosecution history of the ’421 patent also supports Patent Owner’s proposal. Although both parties cite the same relevant aspect of that prosecution history, they interpret it differently. See Pet. 33–34; Prelim. Resp. 26–29. When the application that matured into the ’421 patent was originally filed, independent claim 1 did not include the word “solderable,” but instead recited only that a bottom surface of the LED assembly include “a thermally conductive region in thermal contact with the thermally conducting base, for spreading heat transmitted to the base from the one or more LED die.” Ex. 1002, 21. After the Applicant successfully traversed an obviousness rejection based on a combination of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,847,935 (“Thaler”) and 6,565,239 (“Rizkin”), the Examiner rejected claim 1 as anticipated by U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2003/0189830 (Ex. 1011, “Sugimoto”). Id. at 109. Sugimoto describes a light-source apparatus using an LED in which light-emission efficiency is improved to achieve greater light-output intensity, operational life, and mechanical strength. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 1, 17. In responding to the anticipation rejection during prosecution to distinguish Sugimoto, the Applicant made two amendments to independent claim 1. First, the claim was amended to add the last limitation of the issued claim (“further comprising an LED assembly mount selected from the group consisting of an electrically insulated fastener and a solderable bonding pad”). Ex. 1002, 124. Second, the claim was amended to add the word “solderable” in the limitation at issue, thereby requiring that the “thermally conductive region [be] in solderable thermal contact with the thermally conducting base” (emphasis added). Id. Both of these aspects of Applicant’s amendments were identified by the Examiner in the reasons for allowance as not disclosed by Sugimoto. Id. at 167.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,528,421
• Mexichem UK Ltd. v. The Chemours Company FC, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2019 · IPR2019-00529 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–11, and it declined to institute the remaining grounds under § 314(a).

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Resp. 7–8. Patent Owner contends that “a POSITA is a person with a masters or doctorate degree in chemistry and/or chemical engineering, and having at least 3 years of experience working on the research, development, manufacture and formulations of HFC, HCFC and HFO compounds and mixtures.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 23). Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Thrasher testifies, however, that he has “reviewed Dr. Sandford’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art” and his opinions “do not change under Dr. Sandford’s definition.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 24. We agree with the parties that a POSITA would have had an advanced degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, and experience in the research, development, and/or manufacture of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) and hydrofluoroolefins (HFO), which is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. 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))). Our determination regarding Petitioner’s challenge does not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions, and we note that our conclusions would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 6

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

    “under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also 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) (applicable to inter partes reviews filed on or after November 13, 2018). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner does not propose a construction for any of the claim terms. Pet. 21–22. For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires explicit construction.” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable

    “sufficiently establishes that Rao ’434, Rao ’781, and Rao ’597 disclose compositions comprising HFO-1234yf, 3,3,3-trifluoropropyne, and at least one additional compound, as recited in independent claims 1, and 7 of the ’709 patent, or compositions comprising HFC-245eb, 3,3,3- trifluoropropyne, and at least one additional compound as recited in independent claim 11 of the ’709 patent. The ’709 patent states that the examples present a “general procedure [that] is illustrative of the method used for analyzing the products of fluorination reactions.” Ex. 1001, 12:30– 33. Examples 1, 2, and 3 of the ’709 patent use that procedure to measure the reaction product of (1) vapor phase dehydrofluorination of HFC-245eb to HFO-1234 with fluoride alumina catalyst, (2) pyrolysis of HFC-245eb, and (3) liquid phase dehydrofluorination of HFC-245eb to HFC-1234yf, respectively. Id. at 13:1–14:16. Although the ’709 patent provides the amounts of a number of different reaction products detected in each example, i.e., HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze, and HFC-245eb, notably absent is a measurement for 3,3,3-trifluoropropyne. Id. There is no indication, therefore, that the products in the examples of the ’709 patent represent the claimed compositions of the ’709 patent, each of which requires the presence of 3,3,3-trifluoropropyne.” slip op. at 15

  • Burden

    “this result. An experiment reproducing or recreating an example falls within the scope of that example so long as the reproduction is consistent with the teachings of the example, any deviations are immaterial, and the reasons for any deviations are adequately explained. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma, LLC, 811 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding “no clear error” in the district court’s determination that the prior art application’s process was recreated “fairly, accurately, and with no material variation”); Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding no error in the district court’s determination that one skilled in the art would have understood that testing departing from the “strict letter” of a prior art example was nonetheless consistent with that example). Based on the current record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that its replication of Rao ’434’s example falls within the scope of the example.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,147,709
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Broadcom CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2017-01624 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Diaz did not disclose internally reprogrammable hardware accelerators, and the other grounds did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “3. Construction of “configurable” In construing this term, we have considered the specification of the ’353 patent and its prosecution history. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxycinn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In accord with these portions of the ’844 patent specification and file history discussed supra, we conclude that a hardware accelerator is configurable only if its functionality can be internally reprogrammed. Thus, under our construction, an accelerator selected by an API or other instrumentality would not itself be “configurable.” This will be discussed further infra.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “However, as Patent Owner argues, Diaz ’353 does not explicitly or inherently disclose hardware accelerators that are configurable to perform decoding functions according to a plurality of decoding methods. In Diaz ’533 the overall decoder — as opposed to the constituent hardware accelerators — is configurable in that the processor controls which hardware accelerators are activated. Prelim. Resp. 2, 5–8. We see no meaningful distinction in this respect between Diaz ’353 and Sullivan ’021 which, as discussed above, discloses an API that is configurable to select various hardware accelerators, but which are not themselves configurable, to assist in the decoding process. See Prelim. Resp. 6. In sum, the functionality of the hardware accelerators of Diaz ’353 cannot be internally reprogrammed, but rather can only be bypassed or reused for various operations. Therefore, in accord with our claim construction set forth above, we determine that those hardware accelerators are not “configurable” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Obviousness of Claims 8 and 14 over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, and of Claim 12 over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim As discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the issue of whether Diaz ’353 discloses the claim 1 requirement of configurable hardware accelerators. Claims 8, 12, and 14 depend from claim 1 and so also include this requirement by virtue of their dependency. Petitioner’s obviousness grounds directed to these claims is premised on Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claim 1 that Diaz ’353 discloses configurable hardware accelerators. Pet. 51–63. Petitioner does not provide argument or evidence — aside from the above-considered anticipation arguments based on Diaz ’353 alone — that the combination of Diaz ’353 with Purcell ’483, Fandrianto ’459 or Kim teaches or suggests “a hardware accelerator . . . configurable to perform the decoding function according to a plurality of decoding methods.” Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 8 and 14 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, or of claim 12 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,284,844
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · May 20, 2016 · IPR2015-02000 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Palo Alto Networks’ rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution for claims 1–22 because it showed no overlooked or misapprehended matter.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “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.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “least the following reasons. Under our rules a petition must set forth, for each claim challenged, “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). As we pointed out in our Decision, the Petition did not proffer a specific construction for the term “file cache.” Decision 6. Instead, Petitioner proposed the following blanket construction for all terms: “the BRI for every claim term to be its plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 12 (footnote omitted). Petitioner provided no further explanation or support for its proposal. Nor does Petitioner provide a construction for “file cache” in the rehearing request, or any explanation why the Board’s construction is incorrect. Thus, while Petitioner contends that the Patent Owner’s construction adopted by the Board is “unsupported by the ʼ731 patent claims, specification, or even any extrinsic evidence,” Petitioner provides no details as to what was allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the Board. Req. Reh’g 7. Petitioner’s argument is unavailing because it shifts the burden of advancing a claim construction from the petitioner to the Board. The AIA statute is clear that the burden lies with Petitioner to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing before an inter partes review is instituted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Consequently, our rules require the petition to set forth a claim construction. See supra. Having failed to present a specific construction for “file cache” in its Petition, or to convince the Board that the term needed no further construction, Petitioner did not discharge its burden and therefore is not in a position to complain now that the Board chose an alternative construction presented by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 3

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “This argument could not have been overlooked or misapprehended because it was not presented in the Petition. The Petition’s argument on this issue was one paragraph long and raised two points. Pet. 12. First, Petitioner asserted that neither the parent nor grandparent applications disclosed a file cache because “the word ‘cache’ does not appear in either application.” Id. The second argument was that Patent Owner “tacitly admitted during prosecution” that the challenged claims were not entitled to the earlier date. Id. Both arguments were addressed by the Board in the Decision on Institution, at pages 11–13. The rehearing request cites no discussion in the Petition of the current assertion that the known Downloadables are lists. Moreover, the evidence relied on by Patent Owner to support this argument does not contradict the Board’s finding that the ’194 patent described a file cache. Patent Owner relies on the ʼ194 patent itself, which states: “A Downloadable is an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer.” Ex. 2001, col. 1, ll. 44–47. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that a “known Downloadable” is just a list and not a file is not supported by the ʼ194 patent. A rehearing request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed. See supra. It is not an opportunity to present new arguments. Petitioner’s argument that known Downloadables are lists was not raised by in the Petition and is not proper in a rehearing request.” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “because it was not presented in the Petition. The Petition’s argument on this issue was one paragraph long and raised two points. Pet. 12. First, Petitioner asserted that neither the parent nor grandparent applications disclosed a file cache because “the word ‘cache’ does not appear in either application.” Id. The second argument was that Patent Owner “tacitly admitted during prosecution” that the challenged claims were not entitled to the earlier date. Id. Both arguments were addressed by the Board in the Decision on Institution, at pages 11–13. The rehearing request cites no discussion in the Petition of the current assertion that the known Downloadables are lists. Moreover, the evidence relied on by Patent Owner to support this argument does not contradict the Board’s finding that the ’194 patent described a file cache. Patent Owner relies on the ʼ194 patent itself, which states: “A Downloadable is an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer.” Ex. 2001, col. 1, ll. 44–47. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that a “known Downloadable” is just a list and not a file is not supported by the ʼ194 patent.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,418,731
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2016 · IPR2015-02000 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–22 because the claims were entitled to the November 6, 1997 priority date, so the asserted references were not prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “B. The Applicable Legal Standard Under 35 U.S.C. § 120 Under 35 U.S.C § 120, to claim the benefit of the filing date from an earlier application, each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 609 (CCPA 1977) (“[T]here has to be a continuous chain of co-pending applications each of which satisfies the requirements of § 112 with respect to the subject matter presently claimed.”). If any application in the priority chain fails to include the requisite disclosure, the later-filed application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of applications preceding the break in the priority chain. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “the ʼ194 or ʼ780 patents. Pet. 12. However, as Patent Owner points out, that is not the proper test. Prelim. Resp. 13–14. The claimed subject matter need not be described “in haec verba” in the original specification in order to satisfy the written description requirement. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Rather, “the test . . . is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant possessed what is claimed in the later filed application as of the filing date of the earlier filed application.” Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We are persuaded that, on the record presented, this test has been met. We are persuaded that the disclosure in the ʼ194 patent of a security database storing “known Downloadables” provides written description support for the file cache recitation in the ʼ731 patent claims. Prelim. Resp. 17–19. Petitioner does not dispute that known Downloadables are files. Pet. 26 (“Touboul discloses generating and using a Downloadable ID (file identifier) to identify each Downloadable (file).”). Moreover, Petitioner specifically refers to components of the security database as caches: “Claim 1 [of the ʼ731 patent] is the obvious combination of a cache such as the cache taught by Tso with the scanner, security profile cache, and security policy cache in Touboul’s gateway as detailed below.” Pet. 20 (emphasis added). We see no basis to distinguish these descriptions of caches from the storage of Downloadables in the security database. Moreover, we are persuaded that a security database providing temporary storage of known Downloadables meets the requirements of a cache as “a memory for holding a file, at least temporarily.” See supra.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “E. Conclusion We agree with Patent Owner that the ʼ731 patent claims are entitled to the benefit of the grandparent application filed on November 6, 1997. Accordingly, Touboul and the other art asserted by Petitioner does not qualify as prior art to the ʼ731 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as asserted by Petitioner.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded, either, by Petitioner’s position, unsupported by any citation of authority, that Patent Owner’s decision not to claim the benefit of the earlier filing date during prosecution of the ʼ731 patent is an admission. Nor are we persuaded by the conclusory testimony of Petitioner’s expert on the filing date issue. See Rubin Decl. ¶ 69. Under our rules, expert testimony that does not have a proper basis is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 13

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 7,418,731
• Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC v. Nidec Motor CorporationRehearing denied
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01617 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving claims 1–6 uninstituted because Beifus did not disclose adjusting all motor torque settings with the adjustment factor.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with Petitioner, the party challenging the Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “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.” Id.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “diamonds and squares) of an induction-motor speed-torque curve that may be stored within the memory of an electrically commutated motor (“ECM”) circuit, including breakdown speed, no-load or synchronous speed, and a “shape description number” used in calculating new torque demands. Ex. 1007 ¶ 36. The drawing illustrates scaling of the torque by a factor less than one between a breakdown speed of 1050 RPM and a no-load speed of 1200 RPM, with no scaling at speeds less than the breakdown speed. Id. That is, when Beifus adjusts torque settings at any particular operating speed that is between the breakdown speed and the no-load speed, the same adjustment factor is applied; consequently, torque settings of the motor are adjusted “with the adjustment factor to obtain proportionally reduced torque settings,” as recited in independent claim 1.” slip op. at 4

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with Petitioner, the party challenging the Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “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.” Id.” slip op. at 2

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,990,092
• Sensus USA, Inc. v. Certified Measurement, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2015 · IPR2015-01439 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 43 unpatentable over any asserted ground.

  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 be instituted only if “the information presented in the [P]etition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the [P]etition.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). For the reasons given below, on this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’453 patent. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’453 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s identification of the real parties-in-interest is incomplete, and that the Petition should be denied as failing to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Prelim. Resp. 30–31. Patent Owner asserts that in a related litigation involving the ’453 patent, Petitioner identified an insurance company as covering some of the costs of defending the action against Patent Owner. See Ex. 2001. Patent Owner argues: A hallmark of indemnity or insurance agreements that are available to satisfy part or all of a judgment or to reimburse payments of same is an ability for the insurer or indemnitor to control over [sic] aspects of the litigation, including the defense and maintenance of an inter partes review which seek[s] to invalidate the subject patent. Prelim. Resp. 30. Patent Owner’s argument is generic and fails to identify any specific evidence that any parties other than those identified by Petitioner actually is exercising control over or could exercise control over this proceeding.1 Accordingly, we decline to deny the Petition on this basis. D. The References Petitioner relies on the following references: U.S. Patent No. 4,077,005, issued Feb. 28, 1978 (Ex. 1005, “Bishop”); U.S. Patent No. 5,199,068, issued Mar. 30, 1993 (Ex. 1006, “Cox”); U.S. Patent No. 5,689,442, issued Nov. 18, 1997 (Ex. 1007,” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “Petitioner does not propose a construction for “augmented measurement” aside from stating that it “is described in the individual claims of the patent.” Pet. 17. Nevertheless, Petitioner’s argument suggests that generating an “augmented measurement” requires effecting some combination of the elements recited in the claim—the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal. See Pet. 27 (asserting that Cox disclosing “combining” the previously recited elements of the claim in arguing that Cox teaches “generating an augmented measurement”). Thus, both Petitioner and Patent Owner recognize that generating an augmented measurement requires combining specified elements of the claim. We agree. The parties’ recognition that an augmented measurement requires combining specified elements of the claim is consistent with the specification of the ’453 patent. The ’453 patent explains that an “augmented measurement comprising the cleartext time plus the physical measurement” is created by adding a physical measurement of any physical parameter or event to a time. Ex. 1001, 7:66–8:2.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because Petitioner fails to show that Bishop’s position P signal is formed from two separate signals based at least in part on two physical measurements. Petitioner’s cited portions of Bishop fail to disclose how position P is generated aside from stating that “position P of the ship is determined to an accuracy of + 2 nm . . . by the ship’s navigation equipment 48.” Ex. 1005, 2:63–66. Petitioner, however, has not identified where, if at all, Bishop discloses how the navigation equipment generates the position of the ship. Petitioner’s citations to Bishop’s column 3 refer to Bishop’s disclosure of generating a combined message, which Bishop designates as IS + P + T1, and then enciphers. See, e.g., id. at 3:7–23. Additionally, Petitioner’s reliance on paragraph 40 of the Nielson Declaration fares no better. Dr. Nielson’s testimony includes the same statements as the Petition without providing additional explanation or evidentiary support for us to conclude that Bishop expressly or inherently discloses that its position P signal is formed from two separate signals based at least in part on two physical measurements. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that Bishop discloses each and every element of claim 43 of the ’453 patent.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,289,453

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.