- NXP USA, Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00142 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may be instituted if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under 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). Upon consideration of the papers, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’330 patent “would have had at least the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and one to two years of experience in the field of circuit design, particularly the design of circuits operating at high frequencies.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not identify a level of skill in the art that one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’330 patent or identify any specific shortcoming in Petitioner’s definition. See Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision on Institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 4. This definition is consistent with the ’330 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “no express constructions of the claims are necessary to assess whether the prior art reads on the challenged claims.” Pet. 8. However, Petitioner also cites to a Special Master Report and Recommendation on Claim Construction where “node” was construed to mean “a point of connection or intersection in an electrical circuit.” Id. at 9 (quoting Ex. 1015, 29). Patent Owner adopts this construction for purposes of this Decision on Institution. Prelim. Resp. 8. We find that this construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “node.” We thus apply the construction as such to our analysis below, and we determine that we need not provide an express construction of any other claim term for purposes of this institution decision.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“[claim] limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1270, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “A claim limitation is inherent in the prior art if it is necessarily present in the prior art, not merely probably or possibly present.” Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite, Co., 304 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Moreover, “[t]o anticipate, the reference must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F. 3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, it is not enough to be able to find all of the pieces of the claimed invention somewhere in a prior art reference; rather, those elements must be set out in the prior art reference in the same way they are in the claimed invention. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,535,330 - NXP USA, Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00167 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence presented, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim based on any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 22
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“For all of the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Okabe discloses a semiconductor integrated circuit package with a first layer that includes “a first ground plane enabling electrical connection with low speed electronic circuitry” and a “second ground plane enabling electrical connection with high speed electronic circuitry.” Ex. 1001, 9:25–36.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a “bachelor’s degree in a field relating to the integrated circuit package manufacturing process like materials science, physics, electrical engineering, or other related subjects, and at least two to three years of experience with fabrication and packaging of integrated circuits.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 7. 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.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. As Patent Owner and Dr. Bernstein point out, Petitioner does not specify the frequencies at which duplexer 45 and VCO 70 operate in Okabe. Prelim. Resp. 20; Ex. 2001 ¶ 79. Nor does Petitioner direct us to any criteria for classifying circuitry as “high speed” or “low speed.” Prelim. Resp. 20; Ex. 2001 ¶ 79. As a result, we are left with only the assertion of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood about duplexer 45 and VCO 70. To support this assertion, Petitioner directs us to statements in Dr. Baker’s declaration that mirror the Petition. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 71–73). Dr. Baker, however, does not cite to any supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statements. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 71–73. “Thus, the cited declaration testimony is conclusory and unsupported, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight.” Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (August 24, 2022) (precedential); see also 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.”). Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Okabe discloses a second layer that includes a “third ground plane configured for electrical connection with low speed electronic circuitry” and a “fourth ground plane configured for electrical connection with high speed electronic circuitry.” Ex. 1001, 9:37– 43.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,646,091 - 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 - Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sirigen II LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01208 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim of the ’303 patent. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached
“1 Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments related to discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have at least a Ph.D. degree in chemistry, or a bachelor’s or master’s degree plus experience involving the use and design of fluorescent probes or dyes.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–18). Patent Owner agrees that a POSITA may have a Ph.D. degree or master’s degree in chemistry, but asserts that a POSITA would also have “some experience with fluorescence” in addition to a Ph.D. degree in chemistry and that the experience of a POSITA with a master’s degree in chemistry is alternatively “industry experience in the field of biological detection systems.” Prelim. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 7). For purposes of this Decision, we need not choose between the parties’ proposed levels of one of ordinary skill in the art, which are quite similar, as neither party asserts that the anticipation or obviousness analyses in this case would turn on which definition is adopted. See, e.g., id. at 10 (noting that the arguments and conclusions reached in the Preliminary Response “would not change” if Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan were applied).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“structure of Formula (Ia),” including specific MU, L1 and L2, G1 and G2, n, and a, b, c, and d (which define the mol % of each unit within the structure) constituents, wherein each R group must be a “[n]on-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water in excess of 10 mg/mL.” Ex. 1006, 239:29–240:56. The ’303 patent expressly defines the phrase “[n]on-ionic side groups capable of imparting solubility in water” to refer to “side groups which are not charged and allow the resulting polymer to be soluble in water or aqueous solutions with no visible particulates.” Id. at 54:31–34. In view of structure of claim 1 and the express definition provided in the ’303 patent, we agree with Patent Owner that claim 1 requires that the non-ionic side group R must be capable of imparting solubility to the claimed conjugated polymer (having constituents that satisfy the claimed variables noted above) in excess of 10 mg/mL. Prelim. Resp. 13. On this record, it is not sufficient to show that a particular R group is capable of” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,575,303 - PTAB · Jul 14, 2022 · IPR2022-00411 · APJ Paul J Korniczky · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11, or 13 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“authority to institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and other evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we deny Petitioner’s request to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11, and 13 of the ’690 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“2 The substantive discussion in Petitioner’s three declarations are essentially identical to each other and to the Petition. For example, pages 40–74 of the Petition are essentially identical to a single paragraph in each of the declarations –– Hopkins Decl. ¶ 88 on pages 54–92, Keough Decl. ¶ 88 on pages 63–97, and Denton Decl. ¶ 65 on pages 46–81. Thus, we question whether the declarations provide independent analysis and we give the declarations little, if any, weight. See Intex Recreation Corp. et al. v. Team Worldwide Corp., IPR2018-00875, Paper 129 at 40, n. 15 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2019) (“We further note that Dr. Stevick’s testimony is nearly identical to the language appearing in the Patent Owner Response, down to the case citation. This identity in language causes us to attribute less weight to a declarant’s testimony.” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s definition is unclear. Prelim. Resp. 14. Petitioner’s definition includes unclear and subjective requirements such as that the person of ordinary skill in the art have (a) worked “long enough to be aware of” certain items, including unexplained “primary existing RV features,” (b) familiarity with unexplained “common terminology,” (c) “good mechanical aptitude,” (d) “good spatial perception,” (e) “significant experience” with a wide variety of roles, and (f) “sufficient awareness of the various governmental regulations applicable to RVs.” Id. (citing Pet. 18–20). Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’690 patent. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“While we generally agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a truss and beam, as used in the ’690 patent, are two different structures, serve different purposes, and provide different benefits to the overall design of a chassis, Patent Owner identifies the function, but not the structure, of a truss and beam. After considering the extrinsic and intrinsic evidence, we construe: (1) a beam to be a “body, with one dimension large compared with the other dimensions, configured to carry lateral loads (perpendicular to the large and bending dimension) and bending movements;” and (2) a truss to be a “frame built from members in tension and compression.” These definitions are consistent with the support structures shown in Figures 7 and 9 and discussed in column 3, lines 21–48 of the Specification. Referring to Figures 7 and 9, for example, truss 93C is a frame built from members in tension and compression and beam 93D has one large dimension and supports loads applied to its perpendicular axis. In addition, third section 93 of chassis 90 has beams, not trusses. Ex. 1001, 3:26–28.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,046,690 - Helen Of Troy Limited v. Tomy International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2022 · IPR2021-01208 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–21 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation by Song or obviousness over Song alone, with Kilion, or with Kassai.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’176 patent “would be someone with a Bachelor’s degree in industrial design or furniture design with a focus on designing adjustable or reconfigurable furniture, or with one to two years of experience designing adjustable furniture or other products for infants or children.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner indicates that it “does not submit a different level of ordinary skill than the Petitioner.” Prelim. Resp. 11. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that it “does not believe any special claim constructions are required for the Board to conclude that the asserted prior art renders the challenged claims unpatentable.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner generally agrees, stating that “the Board does not need to construe the claims to deny institution.” Prelim. Resp. 11. We determine that for the purposes of this Decision, it is unnecessary to expressly construe these claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only terms in controversy must be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that Patent Owner has the better position. With respect to Petitioner’s annotated versions of Song’s Figures 2 and 3, we agree that Petitioner’s arguments are not supported. To be sure, drawings may be relied upon for the purposes of anticipation. In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 953 (CCPA 1931) (“Description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words.” (citation omitted)). Nonetheless, an ambiguous reference cannot anticipate a claim. Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017). With respect to Figure 3, Song does not expressly teach that the bottom portion of water tank 3 is rigid. Rather, Song teaches that water tank 3 is made with foldable wall 2 that can be folded inward. Ex. 1005, 3. The support legs are also foldable to the inside of support levers 4 and each part can be joined and affixed in a small volume. Id. In other words, the walls, legs, and levers are folded together into a small volume to make the bathtub “convenient to carry.” Id. As such, we agree with Patent Owner that Figure 3 may very well depict the folded bathtub with a taut or folded wall (including the tank bottom) rather than a rigid material. The point, here, though is that we cannot tell from Figure 3 why the tank bottom is depicted as it is shown. Moreover, Song’s express description of the folded bathtub shown in Figure 3 does not support Petitioner’s position that the straight tank bottom must be rigid. Similarly, it is ambiguous as to whether Figure 2 uses cross-hatching to depict a rigid material for any illustrated structural components. Indeed, the left-side leg attachment of Figure 2 shows white dots against black. Id. at Fig. 2. But at the opposite side, the companion leg attachment near “6” does not show the same pattern. Id. Moreover, lid body 9, which is made from a synthetic resin, has no cross-hatching. Id. Further, the pattern presented in the magnified version (provided by Patent Owner) of Figure 2 shows uneven and inconsistent markings at the bottom of water tank 3. Thus, it is unclear whether the identified portion at the tank bottom contains any cross-hatching or intentional markings. Likewise, even if we were to apply purported drafting conventions (e.g., MPEP § 608.02) to a Japanese patent application, the relied upon markings shown in Figure 2 still do not show cross-hatching “with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.” Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,545,176 - Phillips 66 v. Magēmā Technology, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01173 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Weiss-based grounds teach or suggest the claimed residual marine fuel oil.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). 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.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“D. Discretionary Denial Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (precedential). Prelim. Resp. 12–31. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 6–12. Because we deny institution based on the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments, we need not decide whether to exercise discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine we need not expressly construe any terms of the challenged claims at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“feedstock HMFO and the product HMFO of the challenged claims, as Petitioner argues it does, Petitioner must show that Weiss ’974 teaches or suggests four facts: (1) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is a residual petroleum 10 Petitioner defines “HSFO” as being a “high-sulfur HMFO” and “LSFO” as being a “low-sulfur HMFO.” Pet. 1. product, (2) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is ISO-8217-compliant, (3) the post-hydrotreatment LSFO is a residual petroleum product, and (4) the posthydrotreatment LSFO is ISO-8217-compliant. Petitioner does not show all four of these facts sufficiently to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the challenged claims are anticipated by Weiss ’974 or obvious over the combination of Weiss ’974 and Weiss ’515.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,584,287 - In-Depth Geophysical, Inc. / In-Depth Compressive Seismic, Inc. v. Conocophillips CompanyRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 30, 2020 · IPR2019-00849 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left institution denied for claims 1–6 because Petitioner did not show Li was a printed publication.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“On request for rehearing, the burden of showing a decision on whether to institute trial should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For reasons discussed below, we decline to modify the Decision. Thus, Petitioner’s Request is denied.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate at the institution stage a reasonable likelihood that a reference is a printed publication by a preponderance of the evidence. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”). Petitioner presented no additional evidence supporting its contentions, for example from someone familiar with the publication of Li or the referenced web pages, or even an explanation by Petitioner or a declarant that provided a countervailing argument to the SEG process and procedure for publication outlined by Dr. Aminzadeh in his Declaration. Instead, Petitioner simply points to purported “publication dates,” with no substantive explanation or fact witness corroboration. Req. Reh’g (citing Ex. 1020, Ex. 1021, Ex. 1026, Ex. 1030).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate at the institution stage a reasonable likelihood that a reference is a printed publication by a preponderance of the evidence. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”). Petitioner presented no additional evidence supporting its contentions, for example from someone familiar with the publication of Li or the referenced web pages, or even an explanation by Petitioner or a declarant that provided a countervailing argument to the SEG process and procedure for publication outlined by Dr. Aminzadeh in his Declaration. Instead, Petitioner simply points to purported “publication dates,” with no substantive explanation or fact witness corroboration. Req. Reh’g (citing Ex. 1020, Ex. 1021, Ex. 1026, Ex. 1030). Although documents indicating a publication date of 1 September 2012 may have relevance, absent additional evidence explaining the origin and meaning of that date as to public accessibility, on the record before us, the date alone fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Li was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it. This is especially true in the face of Dr. Aminzadeh’s unrebutted testimony as to SEG’s regular practices surrounding the acceptance and dissemination of SEG conference papers. While his testimony may not speak directly to a date of public accessibility for Li itself, it is relevant, uncontroverted, and probative of accessibility to SEG papers in general, given the bare “1 September 2012” date relied on by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Petitioner to the extent that Dr. Aminzadeh did not attest to personal knowledge of the Li paper. Dr. Aminzadeh however provided a credible explanation of the process for authoring and presenting papers at the SEG (Society of Exploration Geophysicists) conference. Dr. Aminzadeh is a member and co-author of SEG papers, as well as a former President of SEG. Ex. 2007 ¶ 3. In our Decision, we explained that [w]e give weight to Dr. Aminzadeh’s testimony because it articulates a reasonable and unrebutted explanation for the September 2012 date listed by Researchgate exhibit. Dr. Aminzadeh’s testimony also persuasively explains how and why the dissemination and first public availability of Li would have most likely not occurred prior to the SEG 2012 Annual Meeting from November 4-9, 2012. Dec. 12. We also stated in our Decision that dissemination “of Li would have most likely not occurred prior to the SEG 2012 Annual Meeting” (id.) because, for one reason, Dr. Aminzadeh’s unrebutted testimony is that “[a]uthors submit papers to the SEG several months before the SEG conference. The papers are kept confidential by the SEG at that time.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 4. Although Dr. Aminzadeh does not testify specifically to knowledge of the Li reference, Petitioner has not explained persuasively why this indicates that Dr. Aminzadeh’s testimony as to the SEG confidentiality practices and paper dissemination, as set forth in his Declaration, is inaccurate or misleading.” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,632,193 - Blackberry Corp. v. Facebook, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 5, 2020 · IPR2019-01596 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 3-6 were anticipated by Peinado or obvious over Peinado and McKelvey.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim. We, therefore, do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“of invention of the ’432 patent “would have had a Bachelors of Science degree in computer or electrical engineering, or equivalent, and 2–3 years of relevant experience working with computer security technology.” Pet. 89. Patent Owner states that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have had approximately the level of education and experience identif[ied] by Petitioner, or a similar level of education and/or experience, with somewhat more education substituting for somewhat less work experience and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Storer Decl. ¶ 16). Given the lack of dispute, and for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is consistent with the level of skill in 5 the art reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“using the same standard used in federal district court, including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the 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). Petitioner proposes that the term “dedicated security processor” means “a processor dedicated to providing security functions.” Pet. 910. Patent Owner states that in the copending litigation, the parties have agreed to this construction, and, therefore, Patent Owner does not dispute the proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 45. For purposes of this decision, we adopt the construction of “dedicated security processor” proposed by Petitioner, as stated above, and agreed to by Patent Owner in the co-pending litigation. The remainder of the claim we interpret in accord with the claim’s ordinary meaning to one skilled in the art at the time of invention, in light of the teachings of the specification and the prosecution history, and do not find it necessary to provide any express claim constructions. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“correctly notes, Peinado’s DRM system and the rendering application are both implemented on a computing device with a single processor. Prelim. Resp. 13. As stated above in the summary of Peinado, security processor 64 runs DRM system 32p in the portable device to authenticate the digital content downloaded from another computer. Ex. 1004, 37:6266. The same DRM system 32p renders the digital content on the portable device. Id. at 36:5362. The claim requires that the “dedicated security processor” validate the file and user access. The claim also requires that the “dedicated security processor” provide the file to “an other processor” that continues processing the file after the user has been validated. There is no “providing” step in Peinado’s security processor 64 embodiment. The same processor performs both the validating and the processing of the file after validation. Petitioner also points to the disclosure of the decrypted content being provided to the rendering application. See Pet. 19. But that “providing” is (1) not shown occur in the embodiment of security processor 64 and (2) not shown to involve “an other processor.” Pointing to another application receiving the content in a completely different embodiment in Peinado is not sufficient to show that Peinado discloses the limitation. Accordingly, we find that the Petition does not show adequately that Peinado anticipates claim 1 of the ’432 patent.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,228,432 - ZTE USA, Inc. v. Saint Lawrence Communications LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00705 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Ozawa did not show the required comparison of pitch prediction errors across signal paths, and the obviousness grounds did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). We have reviewed the Petition and supporting declaration of Dr. Johnson, and these materials do not contain adequate support for Petitioner’s assertion that Ozawa discloses the “a selector for comparing the pitch prediction errors calculated in said at least two signal paths” limitation of claim 1, or the “comparing the pitch prediction errors calculated in said at least two signal paths” limitation of claim 55. Petitioner asserts that “vector selector 22 selects one of the candidate code vectors and one of the gain code vectors that minimize the distortion [i.e., pitch prediction error].” Pet. 18. Petitioner, however, does not cite persuasive evidence that Ozawa discloses calculating the distortion of a pitch codevector in each of at least two signal paths, or that Ozawa’s vector selector 22 performs a comparison between distortions calculated in at least two signal paths. See Pet. 17–19, 37–40, 58. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Johnson, testifies that vector selector 22 performs one type of comparison “during mode 1, 2, or 3,” and a different type of comparison “during mode 0.” See Ex. 1036 ¶ 98 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:21–40). Dr. Johnson, however, does not offer persuasive testimony or evidence that Ozawa discloses a comparison between distortions (i.e., pitch prediction errors) that were calculated in two different modes (i.e., signal paths). See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 96–101, 145–147. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has not made an adequate showing that Ozawa discloses the “a selector for comparing the pitch prediction errors calculated in said at least two signal paths” limitation of claim 1, or the “comparing the pitch prediction errors calculated in said at least two signal paths” limitation of claim 55. Accordingly, the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its anticipation challenge to independent claims 1 and 55. For the same reasons, the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its anticipation challenge to dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 56, 59, and 62, all of which depend from either claim 1 or claim 55. 3.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“is . . . used for selecting a single path used for the computation of the codevector distortions” (i.e., the Petitioner-identified pitch prediction error).” Prelim. Resp. 27. “In other words, Ozawa does not calculate pitch prediction errors for subframes for each of the different modes [paths] and select the mode [path] with the lowest calculated pitch prediction error,” as required by independent claims 1 and 55. Id. (emphasis added). On this record, we find Patent Owner’s argument to be persuasive.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Obviousness of Claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 60 over Ozawa, G.729, and/or Ordentlich Claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 60, all depend from either claim 1 or claim 55, and Petitioner’s obviousness arguments regarding these claims all rely on Petitioner’s assertion that Ozawa discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 55. See Pet. 24, 27, 35, 41– 60. Petitioner does not argue that G.729 and Ordentlich individually or collectively cure the deficiencies discussed above in Petitioner’s argument with respect to claims 1 and 55. See id. Accordingly, the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its obviousness challenges to dependent claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 60.” slip op. at 16
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,260,521
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.