- Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00977 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 7–13 and 15–20 unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, physics, or a similar field and at least two years of experience designing semiconductor display devices, including LCD displays.” Pet. 19. Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional relevant work experience can compensate for less education, and vice versa.” Id. On the record presented, Patent Owner “does not dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . set forth in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 8. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any particular proffered definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’606 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“As discussed below, we are able to determine whether to institute review without resolving the construction of any claim terms. Accordingly, we need not and do not construe any terms expressly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in 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 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“view. First, as Petitioner admits, data line 6a is not connected to image signal line 101d and line 109 other than when sample hold circuit 101c connects them due to shift register 101b outputting an enabling signal. Pet. 49. This is supported by the layout of the four elements in Fujikawa’s Figure 2. Ex. 1005, Fig. 2 (depicting sample hold circuits 101c between and connecting data lines 6a and signal lines 101d). In addition, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. E. Fred Schubert, testifies that “two separate lines straddling circuitry are [not] one line.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. The dispute between the parties on this issue is largely one of claim construction: should the term “wiring line” in claim 7 be construed broadly enough to encompass a collection of lines separated by a sample hold circuit? In order to determine that Fujikawa discloses or teaches the recited wiring lines, we would need to answer this question in the affirmative. Yet, as discussed above, neither party proposes construing “wiring line,” or any other term used in the claims of the ’606 patent. Pet. 18; Prelim. Resp. 7. The failure to argue for and sufficiently support a broad construction of the term “wiring line” means that Petitioner does not show sufficiently, for purposes of supporting institution of review, that Fujikawa discloses or teaches the “wiring line” limitation of claim 7. b) Conclusion Regarding Claim 7 Based on the record presented, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 7 is unpatentable as anticipated by or obvious in view of Fujikawa.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,557,606 - PTAB · Nov 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00851 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims 1–7 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged ground.
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) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of challenged claims 1–7. We thus deny institution of inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) (“At any” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant prior art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112[(f)] applies” and that “the failure to use the word ‘means’ also creates a rebuttable presumption—this time that § 112[(f)] does not apply.”12 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part) (internal citations omitted). Because the “sealing means” limitation includes the word “means,” we start from the rebuttable presumption that § 112(f) applies. Petitioner does not address the applicability of § 112(f) and does not rebut the presumption. We continue the analysis, however, and, for the reasons below, we agree with Patent Owner that § 112(f) applies to the “sealing means” limitation.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“3. “fits behind” In wherein clause (vi), claim 1 recites: “the outwardly pointing outer flange of the first connecting device fits behind the inner flange of the nut unit.” Ex. 1001, 9:4–5 (emphasis added). In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner discusses the term “fits behind” in this claim language. See Prelim. Resp. 41–45. We need not construe explicitly this language or any other claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in 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 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,851,030 - Fervo Energy Co. v. Ormat Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00665 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
Institution denied because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the proposed obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Principles of Law A petition must show how the construed claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds it identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends the following assessment in connection with a person of ordinary skill in the art: The Challenged Claims pertain to a method of recovering geothermal heat. However, “[m]any of the techniques are derived from oil and gas industry.” EX1001 at 4:23-24. Accordingly, here, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is a person with a Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, and/or Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering, Energy Resource Engineering, or the like, or at least five years of experience engineering, drilling, and constructing wells. Furthermore, a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could also have met the relevant standard for a POSITA. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 34–36). Patent Owner does not offer its own assessment of a POSITA. For purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther
“own for any claim term. Patent Owner does, however, note that “claim element 9c[13] includes the terms ‘means for,’ which are presumed to invoke 13 The referenced “claim element 9c” reads in-part “Means for producing a water density difference and a pressure difference between said first means-plus-function treatment under Section 112.” Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B Inc., IPR2022-01378, Paper 12 at 11 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2023) (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part))). Patent Owner further submits that “[u]nder Rule 104(b)(3),[14] Petitioner had an obligation to provide a construction of claim element 9c that includes both the claimed function and the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” Id. We agree with Patent Owner that the term “means for” when appearing in a claim triggers a rebuttable presumption that treatment under § 112 applies. On the record before us, however, Petitioner has not explained why the noted presumption has been rebutted or does not apply, and has not provided a construction of the pertinent “means for” term in the Petition in contradiction to the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“While it is certainly the case that “a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art,” see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992), it is incumbent on a petitioner, in advancing a permissible theory of obviousness, to explain why a skilled artisan would recognize to pick and choose certain aspects of a reference and combine them with other aspects of the reference, particularly so where the reference itself does not suggest such combination. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests” ) (citation and inner quotes omitted). Here, Petitioner’s oscillation between different embodiments of Rinaldi in an attempt to reach the requirements of claim 1 is not adequately explained, and more closely resembles impermissible hindsight. See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). In sum, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable as a part of Petitioner’s proposed Ground 1.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,320,221 - Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00567 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Cho disclosed the claimed reservoir structure required by the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Therefore, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Cho describes “a liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber” in either of the “separated embodiment” or the “integrated embodiment.” For at least this reason, and based on the current record, Petitioner has failed to establish that claim 43 is anticipated by Cho. 3. Remaining Claims 44, 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93 Petitioner asserts that claims 44, 76, 77, 81, 86, 89, and 93 are anticipated by Cho. Pet. 35–46, 54–64. In addition, Petitioner alleges that the combination of Cho and Nielsen would have rendered obvious claim 80 of the ’114 patent. Pet. 64–70. Each of claims 44, 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93 requires a “liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber,” either by virtue of dependence (claims 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93) or independent recitation (claim 44). Ex. 1001, 11:50–12:9, 19:1–19:63. Because Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood that Cho teaches a “liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber,” we decline to institute on the remaining claims.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are persuaded that Petitioner has not shown that Cho describes a “liquid reservoir [that] is partially defined by the exterior of an atomizing chamber” in either of the “separated embodiment” or the “integrated embodiment.” Pet. 48–50. With respect to the “separated embodiment,” Petitioner identifies the inside of storage container 1201 as the “interior of the cartridge housing” and the outside of air inhalation tube 1313 as the “exterior of the atomizing chamber.” Id. But Annotated Figure 11 does not show air inhalation tube 1313 as part of atomizing chamber 1203. Therefore, the liquid reservoir, i.e., loading portion 1205, is not “at least partially defined by . . . an exterior of the atomizing chamber.”” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“3. Remaining Claims 44, 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93 Petitioner asserts that claims 44, 76, 77, 81, 86, 89, and 93 are anticipated by Cho. Pet. 35–46, 54–64. In addition, Petitioner alleges that the combination of Cho and Nielsen would have rendered obvious claim 80 of the ’114 patent. Pet. 64–70. Each of claims 44, 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93 requires a “liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber,” either by virtue of dependence (claims 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93) or independent recitation (claim 44). Ex. 1001, 11:50–12:9, 19:1–19:63. Because Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood that Cho teaches a “liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber,” we decline to institute on the remaining claims.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “at the time of the ’114 patent would have had a B.S. in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent degree, and either at least two years of experience designing electro-mechanical consumer products or an advanced degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field.” Prelim. Resp. 2 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19). Patent Owner submits that “the arguments in this Response apply regardless of which standard is adopted,” and that “Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. John Collins, was a POSITA at the time of the ’114 patent under either [Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s] definition.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 22). In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’114 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’114 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips - Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01214 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over Almgren or Haartsen, alone or with other prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Petitioner Preliminary Reply, the Patent Owner Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’264 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 20, 21, 23, and 25–27 of the ’264 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active 8 Petitioner asserts that Haartsen is prior art under § 102(b). Pet. 6. 9 US 5,491,837, filed March 7, 1994, issued February 13, 1996 (Ex. 1005, “Haartsen”). workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner, without the qualifier “at least” because its use introduces vagueness, for the purposes of this Decision because it is consistent with the ’264 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner, however, argues that “[t]he phrase ‘without disabling any other communication channel’ encompasses not dedicating a specific frequency channel for measuring path loss.” Pet. 25; see also Ex. 1008 ¶ 124. That is, Petitioner’s position appears to be that the recited limitation could be sufficiently disclosed or met by prior art if it instead meets the different requirement of “not dedicating a specific frequency channel for measuring path loss.” We do not agree. For support, Petitioner cites portions of the ’264 patent Specification that discuss not dedicating specific frequency channels for measuring path loss. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:58– 61, 3:39–45, 3:48–50, 4:60–63). Petitioner does not explain, however, why the term “without disabling any other communication channel” should be taught by this disclosure of this alternative requirement or, in other words, Petitioner does not explain why that term should encompass “not dedicating a specific frequency channel for measuring path loss.” Mr. William does not provide any additional explanation and merely repeats the statements of the Petition in a conclusory manner. Ex. 1008 ¶ 124. As discussed above, and as the parties agreed, we will proceed with the assessment of the merits using the plain meaning of the claim term “without disabling any other communication channel.”” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“claim limitations at issue, and, specifically, the burden extends to negative limitations such as “without disabling any other communication.” See IBM v. Iancu, 759 F. App’x 1002, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explaining that a reference’s silence was not by itself sufficient to establish that the reference teaches a process involving only one user authentication action). Petitioner does not appear to dispute its required showing, that is, Petitioner does not argue that the absence of an element in the prior art is sufficient per se to satisfy a negative limitation. Rather, the Petition affirmatively asserts that Almgren discloses or teaches the limitation “without disabling any other communication.” Pet. 25–26. Petitioner, however, argues that “[t]he phrase ‘without disabling any other communication channel’ encompasses not dedicating a specific frequency channel for measuring path loss.” Pet. 25; see also Ex. 1008 ¶ 124. That is, Petitioner’s position appears to be that the recited limitation could be sufficiently disclosed or met by prior art if it instead meets the different requirement of “not dedicating a specific frequency channel for measuring path loss.” We do not agree. For support, Petitioner cites portions of the ’264 patent Specification that discuss not dedicating specific frequency channels for measuring path loss. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:58– 61, 3:39–45, 3:48–50, 4:60–63). Petitioner does not explain, however, why the term “without disabling any other communication channel” should be taught by this disclosure of this alternative requirement or, in other words, Petitioner does not explain why that term should encompass “not dedicating a specific frequency channel for measuring path loss.” Mr. William does not provide any additional explanation and merely repeats the statements of the Petition in a conclusory manner. Ex. 1008 ¶ 124. As discussed above, and as the parties agreed, we will proceed with the assessment of the merits using the plain meaning of the claim term “without disabling any other communication channel.”” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,320,264 - Hebei Huatong Wires And Cables Group Co, Ltd. v. Gulf Coast Downhole Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 22, 2023 · IPR2023-00908 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For institution, “[t]he ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard is a somewhat flexible standard that allows the Board room to exercise judgment.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 53 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We find, upon review of the information in the Petition and evidence of record, that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Hurley discloses that its separation layer 52, even when formed of flexible armor (see Pet. 26) is structured to be hermetically sealed or maintain a positive or negative pressure as required by claim 1. Petitioner fails to direct us to sufficient evidence to support a finding that separation layer 52 is structured to be hermetically sealed or maintain a positive or negative pressure. Dr. Ballato does not provide any testimony in support.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s contention with respect to motivation is directed merely to a motivation to consult Bowker. That is, Petitioner’s contention is directed to whether Bowker is analogous art to the ’565 patent. We agree it is. However, “[o]bviousness requires, inter alia, a finding that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of prior art in such a way that the combination discloses the claimed limitations.” Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (emphasis added). This inquiry is separate from the requirement that the prior art is analogous. See Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1003–04 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Prior art references are applicable to the obviousness inquiry only when they are analogous to the claims being challenged.”); Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., (denying institution after determining that showing that the references are analogous art and could be combined does not necessarily establish a sufficient rationale for combining the references). The Petition does not provide any contentions directed to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bowker’s teachings with Hurley to arrive at the claimed invention. As such, the Petition fails to provide a reason, supported by rational underpinnings, to combine the teachings of Hurley and Bowker and, accordingly, fails to demonstrate obviousness. Cf. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (stating that, to facilitate the analysis of an obviousness position, the proponent should provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). Dr. Ballato’s Declaration adds nothing to Petitioner’s analysis. The Declaration merely repeats what is in the Petition and provides no support for the testimony. 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.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (according “little weight” to declaration testimony that contains a verbatim restatement of a petition’s conclusory assertions without additional supporting evidence or reasoning). Accordingly, the Petition fails to provide information sufficient to demonstrate for institution that the combination of Hurley and Bowker renders claims 1–5, 11, 13, 18–20, and 22 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hurley and Bowker. Cf. Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 81 F.4th 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“We held that, under the [Administrative” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s contention with respect to motivation is directed merely to a motivation to consult Bowker. That is, Petitioner’s contention is directed to whether Bowker is analogous art to the ’565 patent. We agree it is. However, “[o]bviousness requires, inter alia, a finding that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of prior art in such a way that the combination discloses the claimed limitations.” Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (emphasis added). This inquiry is separate from the requirement that the prior art is analogous. See Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1003–04 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Prior art references are applicable to the obviousness inquiry only when they are analogous to the claims being challenged.”); Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,581,565 - Lightricks Ltd. v. Plotagraph, Inc. And Sascha ConnellyInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00569 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted AEM, IMU-Okabe, or IMU-Okabe-Li ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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 set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least one 1–2 years of experience in image processing and animation,” and “[l]ess education could have been compensated with more experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29). Petitioner adds that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have also been familiar with existing systems for image processing and animation and understood how to implement such systems.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- 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 at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46). Patent Owner indicates that it proposes “construction for certain claim language below,” but it does not actually identify any claim language for construction, let alone provide any constructions. Prelim. Resp. 16–17. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in 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 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“First, the disclosure of AEM that Petitioner relies on for teaching selecting certain pixels to be transparent or nontransparent pertains to “compositing,” i.e., creating a composite image from multiple images. Ex. 1003, 315–16. AEM states specifically: “To create a composite from multiple images, you can make parts of one or more of the images transparent so that other images can show through.” Id. at 315. Thus, each pixel in the composite image is either transparent or nontransparent such that every pixel is “selected” under Petitioner’s usage of the term “selecting.” The possibility that some of these pixels, in theory, could extend along a non-linear motion path of a Deform pin is mere happenstance—we are not directed to any disclosure in AEM of actually selecting a set of pixels (either transparent or nontransparent) that extend along a non-linear motion path. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a claim limitation that requires contiguity). We are not persuaded on the record before us that AEM’s disclosure of designating pixels as transparent or nontransparent satisfies selecting a first set of pixels extending along a non-linear pathway.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,301,119 - Chongqing HKC Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00476 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11 unpatentable, principally failing to establish distinct lead wiring lines.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows that there is “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We deny inter partes review, for example, where a petition fails to identify “with particularity” the challenges or evidence supporting them. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring [inter partes review] petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). For the reasons discussed below, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“display electrodes” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines provided on the extending portion and that are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:40‒44. Separately listing “wiring lines” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines” clearly implies that wiring lines Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of the patented invention.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404‒05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that two separately recited elements could not be the same element because it would contradict the plain language of the patent and “they logically cannot be one and the same”). Here, the claim language identifies wiring lines and lead wiring lines as separate elements in that the “lead wiring lines . . . are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:42‒ 44. Here also, the ’913 patent’s specification separately identifies and describes both lead wiring lines 103a and wiring lines 105 in a single embodiment. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 7:42‒46 (“In FIG. 1, . . . [t]he wiring lines 105 are relayed on the upper side of the frame light-shielding film 53 so as to connect the two scanning line driving circuits 104.”), 8:26‒29 (“the data line driving circuit 101a is connected to the plurality of external connecting terminals 102a through the lead wiring lines 103a at both ends of the extending portion 201” (referring to the embodiment depicted in Figure 1)).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“display electrodes” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines provided on the extending portion and that are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:40‒44. Separately listing “wiring lines” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines” clearly implies that wiring lines Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of the patented invention.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404‒05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that two separately recited elements could not be the same element because it would contradict the plain language of the patent and “they logically cannot be one and the same”). Here, the claim language identifies wiring lines and lead wiring lines as separate elements in that the “lead wiring lines . . . are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:42‒ 44. Here also, the ’913 patent’s specification separately identifies and describes both lead wiring lines 103a and wiring lines 105 in a single embodiment. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 7:42‒46 (“In FIG. 1, . . . [t]he wiring lines 105 are relayed on the upper side of the frame light-shielding film 53 so as to connect the two scanning line driving circuits 104.”), 8:26‒29 (“the data line driving circuit 101a is connected to the plurality of external connecting terminals 102a through the lead wiring lines 103a at both ends of the extending portion 201” (referring to the embodiment depicted in Figure 1)).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 7 Yoneda, JP2000267590A, published Mar. 19, 1999. Ex. 1011. 8 Tanaka, JP2004094020A, published Mar. 25, 2004, with exhibit including certified English language translation. Ex. 1012. 9 Hirosue, US 2003/0189686 A1, published Oct. 9, 2003. Ex. 1013. have either a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering with three years of experience in the field of display technology or a master’s degree with one year of experience in the field of display technology.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41‒44). Patent Owner, “[f]or purposes of th[e] Preliminary Response . . . does not dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 7. On this record, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and, therefore, adopt it for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,335,913 - Chongqing HKC Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00475 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because the petition did not sufficiently show that the counter-electrode potential line was one of the claimed main wiring lines coupled to peripheral driving circuits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”). When challenging claims based on obviousness, the Petitioner must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The burden of persuasion, whether for anticipation or for unpatentability for obviousness, never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have either a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering with three years of experience in the field of display technology or a master’s degree with one year of experience in the field of display technology.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38‒41). Patent Owner, “[f]or purposes of th[e]” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“5. Analysis Claim 1 recites “in a peripheral region of the image display region on the element substrate, a plurality of external circuit connection terminals, a plurality of main wiring lines . . . and peripheral driving circuits.” Ex. 1001, 21:55‒60. The plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase includes that the plurality of main wiring lines and peripheral driving circuits are formed on the element substrate. Claim 1 further recites, for the main wiring lines, “each having one end coupled to each of the plurality of external circuit connection terminals, and peripheral driving circuits coupled to the other ends of the main wiring lines.” Id. at 21:57‒59. The plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase is that each main wiring line is connected at one end to an external circuit connection terminal and, at the other end, to the peripheral driving circuits; this is how Petitioner addresses “a plurality of main wiring lines” as to this portion of claim 1 in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 15 (“Figure 4 shows wiring lines coupled to the external connection terminals 102 at one end and coupled to peripheral circuits, including data line driving circuit 101, and scanning line driving circuit 104, at the other.”); see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 59. Petitioner and its driving circuit 104 as peripheral circuits. Pet. 15‒16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 78‒80, Fig. 4; reproducing Fig. 4 without annotation); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 56‒59.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner fails, however, to address the clause, “which is at least one of the plurality of main wiring lines,” and the implication that follows from the plain language of the claim. Id. Specifically, as set forth above, the “plurality of main wiring lines” are coupled at one end to peripheral circuits, and Petitioner provides no basis for the wiring 400 (LCCOM) to be coupled to any element identified by Petitioner as a peripheral circuit. Id. at 15‒17 (identifying data line driving circuit 101 and scanning line driving circuit 104 as peripheral circuits). Rather, Petitioner sets forth that wiring 400 (LCCOM) “supplies potential from the external input terminal 102 to the vertical conduction terminal 106 and then to the counter electrode 21 on the counter substrate 20.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 85, Figs. 3, 4; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63‒65). Further, to the extent Petitioner states that Muraide “discloses a counter electrode provided in the peripheral region on a counter substrate that is arranged to face the element substrate” (id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 41; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60‒62)), Petitioner does not clearly identify the counter electrode as a peripheral circuit (id.) and, further, the counter electrode on the counter substrate is not a peripheral driving circuit on the element (“in a peripheral region of the image display region on the element substrate, . . . peripheral driving circuits” (emphasis added))). Accordingly, on this record, we determine that Petitioner fails to sufficiently establish “a counter electrode potential line that supplies counter electrode potential to the counter electrode, which is at least one of the plurality of main wiring lines.” Although Patent Owner did not clearly raise this particular issue, “[i]n an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). The burden of persuasion, whether for anticipation or for unpatentability for obviousness, never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. Further, our role is not to remedy the deficiencies in Petitions that fall short. Sirona Dental Sys. GMBH v. Institut Straumann AG, 892 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356–57 (2018)) (explaining that because “‘the petitioner’s contentions, not the Director’s discretion, define the scope . . . [,]’ [i]t would thus not be proper for the Board to deviate from the grounds in the petition and raise its own obviousness theory” “institut[ing] a different inter partes review”); cf. Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1380–81 (rejecting an argument that the Board properly “ma[de] an obviousness argument on behalf of [petitioner]” that “could have been included in a properly-drafted petition,” because “petitioner . . . bears the burden of proof”).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,116,390 - DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00392 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims: claims 9–12 lacked a sufficient obviousness showing, and claims 1–8 and 13–19 were disclaimed.
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) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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 set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had (i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and three or more years of experience working in television signal processing and satellite communications; (ii) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in television signal processing and satellite communications; or (iii) a doctoral degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in television signal processing and satellite communications. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 13 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its Preliminary Response. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in 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 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, rather than filling a purported gap in Carnero’s disclosure, Petitioner’s proposed combination essentially requires replacing Carnero’s input device 16 with Fisk’s server 56. But neither the Petition nor Dr. Schonfeld explains sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use server 56 instead of input unit 16 to input data into the microprocessors of converters 4. See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 119. More importantly, setting aside the problem of replacing input unit 16 for the sake of argument, we disagree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use server 56 to input that frequency data into signal processing unit 400 “based on requests for programs it receives from the LCUs,” as argued by Petitioner. See Pet. 38 (emphasis added). Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that the requests for programs generated by Fisk’s LCUs are intended to select channels from a predetermined lineup of channels and are not disclosed as being able to change the channels in the predetermined lineup, such that server 56 “can only distribute the decoded programs it is fed.” See Prelim. Resp. 20–21. By way of example, Patent Owner contends that Figure 6 of Fisk depicts server 56 as having three pre-programmed satellite decoders (SAT1, SAT2, and SAT3) that” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,542,715
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.