- Termax Company v. Illinois Tool Works Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2022 · IPR2022-00106 · APJ Rae Lynn P Guest · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on the sole design claim because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation by Scroggie or obviousness over Scroggie, Scroggie and Benedetti, or Benedetti and Scroggie.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Scroggie is based entirely on the premise that we cannot consider the appearance of the lower platform. See Pet. 32 (“Factoring out unclaimed features and the functional aspects of the lower platform, a side-by-side comparison of the remaining aspects of the claimed design . . . illustrates the D’826 design is identical in all material respects to Scroggie and is anticipated . . . .”). Indeed, on the record before us, Petitioner does not address the design as a whole, to the extent that it includes the appearance of the lower platform, in order to show that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would deem the design depicted in Scroggie to have the same overall visual appearance as that claimed in the ’826 patent. Rather, Petitioner asserts that “there are no differences between Scroggie and the claimed design.” Pet. 41. Indeed, on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that the lower platform is significant to the overall appearance of the fastener design, and thus Petitioner’s analysis is not sufficient on this record. Because we disagree with Petitioner’s premise that the lower platform’s appearance is primarily dictated by function, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to this ground.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“platform is not visible “at all times during the fastener’s normal use,” but is “hidden from view.” Pet. 24. Again, the use of the fastener is not limited to use with a seal for a vehicle. Petitioner provides no evidence of manufacturing techniques, sales, advertising, or installation, to support the contention that “[f]rom manufacture, sale and installation, the lower platform is enshrouded by the perimeter seal.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 65). And, although Petitioner relies on Mr. Wheelock’s testimony, that testimony is unsupported on the record before us. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 65 (failing to identify any support for his opinion). Accordingly, we give Mr. Wheelock’s testimony on this point little weight. 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.”). Additionally, as noted above, we are not persuaded that a seal is a necessary component for a general fastener, and, thus, we are not persuaded that fasteners are not manufactured or sold without seals attached. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that such a position is not supported by case law.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a person having at least a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and at least three years of experience in push-in fastener engineering, and specifically sealing fasteners, as used in the assembly of vehicle trims.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 37). Patent Owner argues that the Petitioner’s definition leaves out a key detail “that the person actually has to be a ‘designer’” and “incorrectly alleges that the person at issue need only be someone with ‘experience’ with push-in fastener ‘engineering,’ without any experience whatsoever in designing them.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. However, Patent Owner also asserts that an ordinary designer is “[a] person having an engineering degree and at least three years of experience in designing fasteners with designs similar to the ‘D826 patent, or comparable qualifications acquired through work experience.” Id. at 12 (bold emphasis added). Because Patent Owner’s definition includes qualifications acquired through “work experience” broadly, we think the parties’ definitions are quite close. In particular, neither definition strictly requires three years of design experience in fasteners; rather, each includes comparable qualifications through other work experiences in fastener technology. Accordingly, the result is not impacted based on whether we rely on Petitioner’s definition or Patent Owner’s definition of the skilled artisan. Further, based on the limited record before us, we note that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art designs of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In construing the design claim, if the particular appearance of a design aspect is dictated by its function, the functional element’s appearance cannot significantly contribute to an ornamental design because it would necessarily have the same appearance in any other device where it serves the same function. Sport Dimension, 820 F.3d at 1321 (“[T]he fact finder should not focus on the particular designs of these elements when determining infringement, but rather focus on what these elements contribute to the design’s overall ornamentation.”). Accordingly, if a feature is shown in the prior art as a whole having a variety of appearances and yet serves the same function, the appearance is likely not critical to its function, or that feature would have looked identical in each device’s design. See Best Lock, 94 F.3d at 1566 (“A design is not dictated solely by its function when alternative designs for the article of manufacture are available.”); L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123 (“When there are several ways to achieve the function of an article of manufacture, the design of the article is more likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose.”). Thus, to determine what visual aspects of a design are primarily functional, any analysis must consider how that feature appears throughout the prior art and whether and what aspects of that feature appear consistently.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01521 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 9–11, 19–21, and 29–30 were obvious over Paxton and Sutton.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“unpatentable under § 103 as obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See Pet. 6, 16–56. For the reasons described below, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“or why its proposed Paxton-Sutton combination would generate rules and provision the rules ‘responsive to correlating,’ as required by the Challenged Claims.” Prelim. Resp. 43. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require “generating, by the computing system and based on the correlating, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the host located in the first network.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” the determined correlation.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2–3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Claim Construction The parties do not dispute any claim constructions (see Pet. 14–15; Prelim. Resp. 41), we find no terms that need to be construed to resolve any issues, and, accordingly, we do not construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,560,176 - Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01418 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable; each ground relied on file-relative Candelore-II pointers disclaimed during prosecution.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable 1 This Petition is Petitioner’s first petition challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 of the ’443 patent. As noted below, Petitioner also filed a second petition challenging the same claims of the ’443 patent in IPR2021- 01419. Petitioner filed a Ranking and Explanation of Material Differences Between Petitions (Paper 3), where Petitioner discusses the two petitions. Because of the determination we reach on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments as to whether two petitions are necessary. likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“based on Candelore-II, the applicants raised two primary arguments. First, the applicants argued that Candelore-II “does not . . . appear to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video by encrypting at least one block of data within the partially encrypted frame so that only a portion of the encoded frame is encrypted.” Ex. 1003, 250. Second, and importantly, the applicants argued that Candelore-II’s failure to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video “is highlighted by the Candelore patent’s failure to disclose DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 251 (first emphasis added). Critically, the very next sentence begins with the word instead, and states, “[i]nstead, the Candelore patent discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” Id. (emphases added). These two sentences from the applicants’ argument directly contrast the recited “offset value” language with Candelore-II’s disclosure. Specifically, the applicants sought to distinguish Candelore-II because its pointers are relative to the file. We find that by contrasting Candelore-II’s pointers, the applicants “ma[d]e clear that the invention does not include a particular feature”— pointers that are relative to the file. GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And, we also find that the applicants’ arguments constitute a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” of an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame, where the offset value is relative to the file. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although we agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never raised a distinction between offset values ‘relative to a file’ and offset values ‘relative to a frame’ at any point during prosecution,” we do not agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never said that offset values relative to a file are excluded from the scope of the claim.” Prelim. Reply 10. Rather, we find no other way to interpret the applicants’ arguments. As noted above, the applicants specifically stated that Candelore-II fails to disclose “DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame’” and then stated that “[i]nstead,” Candelore-II “discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” The applicants’ argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue here and specifically says that it is not disclosed because Candelore-II discloses something else instead.11 Accordingly, for these reasons, we find that the applicants disclaimed “pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.”” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“regarding the meaning of “an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame,” we determine that the applicants disclaimed an offset value that is relative to the file. See supra § II.A.2. On the present record, we find Patent Owner’s argument and evidence persuasive regarding Candelore-II’s disclosure. In particular, Patent Owner identifies the teachings of Candelore-II directed to its pointers, and Candelore-II’s description and Figure 3 support Patent Owner’s argument that Candelore-II’s pointers are relative to the file. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 31, Fig. 3). Additionally, Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s position that Candelore-II teaches pointers that are relative to the file. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. Further, as applied to the combination, Petitioner does not propose modifying Candelore-II’s pointers such that they are not relative to the file. See, e.g., Pet. 22–27 (discussing motivation and reasonable expectation of success), 30–40 (discussing, inter alia, limitations [1f], [1h], [1i], and [1j]). Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution of the ’443 patent, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Toma, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1j] and, hence, claim 1.” slip op. at 42
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,257,443 - Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01419 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable 1 This Petition is Petitioner’s second petition challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 of the ’443 patent. As noted below, Petitioner also filed a petition challenging the same claims of the ’443 patent in IPR2021-01418. Petitioner filed a Ranking and Explanation of Material Differences Between Petitions (Paper 3), where Petitioner discusses the two petitions. Because of the determination we reach on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments as to whether two petitions are necessary. likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Bajaj, however, testifies that he disagrees with Dr. Storer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill because the definition “exceeds the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 25. Nonetheless, Dr. Bajaj does not propose a specific level of ordinary skill in the art and states that, for purposes of his declaration, he applies Dr. Storer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’443 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“prosecution history sheds substantial light on how the applicants understood the disputed claim language. As set forth above, in response to rejections based on Candelore-II, the applicants raised two primary arguments. First, the applicants argued that Candelore-II “does not . . . appear to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video by encrypting at least one block of data within the partially encrypted frame so that only a portion of the encoded frame is encrypted.” Ex. 1103, 250. Second, and importantly, the applicants argued that Candelore-II’s failure to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video “is highlighted by the Candelore patent’s failure to disclose DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 251 (first emphasis added). Critically, the very next sentence begins with the word instead, and states, “[i]nstead, the Candelore patent discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” Id. (emphases added). These two sentences from the applicants’ argument directly contrast the recited “offset value” language with Candelore-II’s disclosure. Specifically, the applicants sought to distinguish Candelore-II because its pointers are relative to the file. We find that by contrasting Candelore-II’s pointers, the applicants “ma[d]e clear that the invention does not include a particular feature”— pointers that are relative to the file. GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And, we also find that the applicants’ arguments constitute a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” of an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame, where the offset value is relative to the file. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although we agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never raised a distinction between offset values ‘relative to a file’ and offset values ‘relative to a frame’ at any point during prosecution,” we do not agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never said that offset values relative to a file are excluded from the scope of the claim.” Prelim. Reply 10. Rather, we find no other way to interpret the applicants’ arguments. As noted above, the applicants specifically stated that Candelore-II fails to disclose “DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame’” and then stated that “[i]nstead,” Candelore-II “discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” The applicants’ argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue here and specifically says that it is not disclosed because Candelore-II discloses something else instead.11 Accordingly, for these reasons, we find that the applicants disclaimed “pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.”” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“regarding the meaning of “an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame,” we determine that the applicants disclaimed an offset value that is relative to the file. See supra § II.A.2. On the present record, we find Patent Owner’s argument and evidence persuasive regarding Candelore-II’s disclosure. In particular, Patent Owner identifies the teachings of Candelore-II directed to its pointers, and Candelore-II’s description and Figure 3 support Patent Owner’s argument that Candelore-II’s pointers are relative to the file. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 1106 ¶ 31, Fig. 3). Additionally, Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s position that Candelore-II teaches pointers that are relative to the file. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. Further, as applied to the combination, Petitioner does not propose modifying Candelore-II’s pointers such that they are not relative to the file. See, e.g., Pet. 30–36 (discussing motivation and reasonable expectation of success), 41–53 (discussing, inter alia, limitations [1f], [1h], [1i], and [1j]). Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution of the ’443 patent, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Notoya, Matsui, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1j] and, hence, claim 1. d. Independent Claim 7 and Dependent Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16 As noted above, limitation [7j] of independent claim 7 recites the same “offset value” language as limitation [1j] and Petitioner relies on its arguments and evidence directed to limitation [1j] in its discussion of limitation [7j]. See Pet. 72–73 (limitation [7j]). For the same reasons discussed above, we find that the same deficiency regarding claim 1 applies equally to claim 7 and the claims that depend from claim 1 or claim 7— claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16. Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Notoya, Matsui, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [7j] and, via their dependency from claim 1 or claim 7, the subject matter of dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16.” slip op. at 44
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,257,443 - ROKU, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2022 · PGR2021-00111 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the challenged patent was not eligible for post-grant review; it found the priority applications supported claims 6 and 19 and did not reach the § 101 ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the above reasons, we are persuaded that the ’031 patent’s priority applications (pre-AIA applications) provide written description support for the claim limitation that “that the “output system” (claim 6) or “output device” (claim 19) can be an “Internet appliance.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that claims 6 and 19 have an effective filing date after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, claims 6 and 19 do not render the ’031 patent eligible for post-grant review under AIA § 6(f)(2)(A). Accordingly, the information presented in the Petition does not establish that the ’031 patent is eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“Finally, the definition of output device in the priority ’765 Application (as in the Specification of the ’031 patent) is that an “[o]utput device [] is an electronic system capable of outputting digital content … Any device capable of playing or reading digital content in voice (e.g., music, speech) or data (e.g., text, document) is also a possible output device.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (alterations in original) (quoting Ex. 1011 (’765 application) ¶ 89, Ex. 1001, 16:29–41). An Internet appliance does fall within that definition. The ’765 Application also contemplates that an output device is a network device accessible through an IP address. See Ex. 1011, 14 (referring to “[i]dentification of an output device” by “IP address”). Put another way, the priority application adequately describes a device fitting the description of” slip op. at 14
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,846,031 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2022 · PGR2021-00108 · APJ Aaron W Moore · PGR · Institution
Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable, including because the asserted combination did not link rule generation to the packet correlation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Obviousness Analysis A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, primarily: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.6 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–2, 7–8, 10, 12–13, and 17–18 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See Pet. 6, 18–64. For the reasons described below, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2-3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’797 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner argues that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “determining . . . a first plurality of log entries” and “determining . . . a second plurality of log entries” is “identifying” or “ascertaining” log entries.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he terms “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the first plurality of packets received by the network device,” and “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the second plurality of packets transmitted by the network device” (“provisioning rules”) . . . should be given their plain and ordinary meaning—rules configured to identify packets.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Neither party, however, argues that the prior art arguments presented in the Petition turn on the construction of these terms. Instead, it appears that they are raised as claim construction issues only because Petitioner is challenging the language under Section 112. We will discuss the Section 112 arguments below, but do not see a dispute about the constructions offered by the parties above the makes a difference in the prior art analysis and, therefore, do not construe these terms at this time. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“respect to this limitation for several reasons, including that Petitioner’s “alleged rule generation and provisioning” is responsive to detecting malicious activity, not “based on the determined correlation.” Prelim. Resp. 38. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require “generating, by the computing system and based on the determined correlation, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the first host.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” the determined correlation.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,931,797 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 16, 2022 · IPR2021-01151 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–24 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“respect to this limitation for several reasons including that Petitioner’s “alleged rule generation and provisioning is responsive to detecting malicious activity, not ‘responsive to the correlating.’” Prelim. Resp. 27–28. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require that “responsive to the correlating of . . . packets transmitted by the network device with . . . packets received by the network device: generating . . . based on the correlating, one or more rules.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” and “responsive to” the correlation of packets.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“respect to this limitation for several reasons including that Petitioner’s “alleged rule generation and provisioning is responsive to detecting malicious activity, not ‘responsive to the correlating.’” Prelim. Resp. 27–28. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require that “responsive to the correlating of . . . packets transmitted by the network device with . . . packets received by the network device: generating . . . based on the correlating, one or more rules.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” and “responsive to” the correlation of packets.” slip op. at 24
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,659,573 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01154 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–27 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that either asserted Jungck-based obviousness combination rendered the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“c. Summary of Claim 1 In sum, Petitioner does not explain how the edge cache devices contribute or detract from Jungck’s ability to teach or suggest the “entire boundary” and “all traffic” limitations of the challenged claims. The evidence of device 900 and claims of collateral estoppel do not remedy this deficiency. In the absence of such evidence, Petitioner has failed to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge.” See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Jungck and Wood meets the limitation of “[a] method of filtering packets at a packet security gateway, of a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network protected by the packet security gateway . . . comprising: a first set of packet filtering rules to be applied to all network traffic traversing the boundary.”” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition’s avoidance of the operation of edge caches when edge caches are important in the processing of traffic flowing across the boundary undermines this ground of the Petition. If Petitioner wished to rely on an embodiment or configuration in which the edge caches were irrelevant, the edge caches were redundant to the edge server, or the edge caches were unnecessary, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to explain sufficiently how and why that was the case. Petitioner was aware of the edge caches because it appears to have omitted all references to them in the Petition yet did not explain why this was done. Additionally, although Petitioner’s declarant does include references to edge caches, its declarant also does not explain sufficiently the relevance of those edge caches. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 148, 212, 214, 215, 227, 323. Additionally, Petitioner’s references to collateral estoppel do not relieve Petitioner from the burden to describe its contentions regarding obviousness in the Petition.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Our reviewing court has held that “[c]ollateral estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1351–1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). “It is well established that collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, applies in the administrative context.” MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted); Webpower, Inc. v. WAG ACQUISITION, LLC, Case IPR2016- 01239, Paper 21 at 26–28 (PTAB Dec. 26, 2017). “Issue preclusion [i.e., collateral estoppel] is appropriate only if: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377 (citing Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313, 91 S. Ct. 1501, 28 L.Ed. 2d 788 (1971) (finding collateral estoppel applies to a patentee who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of a patent in a prior federal case.)). Patent Owner points out that the claims at issue in IPR2018-01443, 1444, 1513 (“prior IPRs”) did not include the “entire boundary” or “all traffic” limitations. Prelim. Resp. 26–27, 32, 44. We agree. Collateral estoppel does not apply because there are differences between the claim limitation at issue here and the adjudicated claim limitations at issue in the prior IPRs. See In re Freeman, 30 F.3d at 1465; accord MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377–1378; cf. In re Arunachalam, 709 F. App’x 699, 702 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (finding collateral estoppel applies to an adjudicated claim that is not “materially different” than the adjudicated claims).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner requests that the preamble of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 be treated as limiting. Prelim. Resp. 16–17. These preambles provide antecedent basis for “packet security gateway,” “boundary,” “network,” and “one or more other networks.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 20:64–21:2, 22:13–18, 23:35–42). The preambles also recite the “plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a [protected] network,” which is “essential to understand” the “all traffic” limitation in the body of these claims and thus ‘“give life, meaning, and vitality”’ to the claims. Id. (citing Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). The preambles provide the context for the body of the independent claims by defining the arrangement of the “plurality of packet security gateways” relative to the “boundary” of the protected network and thus the basis for applying “packet filtering rules . . . to all network traffic traversing the boundary.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 20:64–21:8). The “entire interface” limitation also was relied on during prosecution of the parent ’437 Patent’s claims to distinguish them from the prior art. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2008, 254–61; Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808–09). Petitioner does not dispute the preambles are limiting. Pet. 18–21, 37. For, the reasons above, we construe the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as limiting. After review of the current record, we conclude that, other than determining the preambles are limiting, no express claim construction is necessary to determine whether to institute review of the challenged claims. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,785,266 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01153 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
Institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 1–20 unpatentable as obvious over Jungck, alone or with RFC2003.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“c. Summary of Claim 1 In sum, Petitioner does not explain how the edge cache devices contribute or detract from Jungck’s ability to teach or suggest the “entire boundary” and “all traffic” limitations of the challenged claims. The evidence of device 900 and claims of collateral estoppel do not remedy this deficiency. In the absence of such evidence, Petitioner has failed to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge.” See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Jungck meets the limitation of “[a] method of filtering packets at a packet security gateway, of a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network protected by the packet security gateway . . . comprising: a first set of packet filtering rules to be applied to all network traffic traversing the boundary.”” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“c. Summary of Claim 1 In sum, Petitioner does not explain how the edge cache devices contribute or detract from Jungck’s ability to teach or suggest the “entire boundary” and “all traffic” limitations of the challenged claims. The evidence of device 900 and claims of collateral estoppel do not remedy this deficiency. In the absence of such evidence, Petitioner has failed to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge.” See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Jungck meets the limitation of “[a] method of filtering packets at a packet security gateway, of a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network protected by the packet security gateway . . . comprising: a first set of packet filtering rules to be applied to all network traffic traversing the boundary.”” slip op. at 22
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Whether or not this was known as a general proposition does not address reasons why Jungck’s traffic appears to bypass the edge servers upon which Petitioner relies and why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Jungck’s operation to apply its rules to all traffic or why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Jungck’s operation to use device 900 instead of the edge servers and what effect that would have on the rest of the operation of Jungck. Petitioner also appears to rely on its declarant who testifies it was well-known to block all incoming traffic. Fintiv Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1004 [Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti] ¶¶ 72–73). Nevertheless, this section of the Declaration was not cited in the Petition but rather is referred to indirectly in a portion of the Declaration which is cited in the Petition. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 241). Paragraph 211 of the Declaration states “[a]s also discussed in Section IV, the use of block lists (e.g., blacklists) to perform packet filtering, including both ingress and egress filtering, was well-known,” but does not refer to paragraphs 72 and 73. Ex. 1004 ¶ 211 (emphasis added). As the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explained, “[a] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.” DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”). Additionally, paragraph 72 of the Declaration contains new argument regarding “firewall” and “standard networking practice” based on references (Bharali and Wood) not cited for that proposition in the Petition. Ex. 1004 ¶ 72. We find the Petition improperly incorporates this section of the Declaration by reference because the basis of the “firewall” argument is not explained sufficiently in the Petition. Cisco Systems, Inc., v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 8 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative opinion) (describing the proper course of action as “to not consider arguments that are not made in the Petition, but are instead incorporated by reference”).” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“other, Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art on October 22, 2012 (the filing date of the application that matured in the ’437 patent), would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, four years of professional experience, and a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attack. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004 [Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti] ¶¶ 34–36). Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill, which Patent Owner does not dispute at this stage, appears appropriate for the technology addressed by this proceeding.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,437 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2021 · IPR2021-00814 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Juniper’s rehearing request, leaving intact its denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“because the Board was not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for purposes of institution does not mean that we overlooked or misapprehended Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and importantly, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to reargue one’s case or to express disagreement with the Board’s decision.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“But Bruckman’s “trunk link” (or LAG as argued by Petitioner) is explicitly disclosed as a link to a core network, not as the links (or traces 34 on backplane 26) to subsidiary modules 24, as argued by Petitioner: “In network access systems, for example, a backplane may be used to connect a main module, having a trunk link to a core network, to a number of subsidiary modules, such as line cards, with ports serving network users. Ex. 1007, 1:25–30 (emphasis added); see id. at 1:61–2:4 (“The master module comprises a switch, which is typically used for linking the subsidiary modules via the connection lines to a network trunk.” (emphases added)); Dec. 25. Bruckman also explicitly discloses that “[a]t any given time, a number of the connection lines [between main module 22 and subsidiary modules 24, i.e., traces 34] are likely to be idle” (Ex. 1007, 2:2–4), which is contrary to a purpose of a LAG (see Ex. 1001, 2:10–16 (“The [LAG] forwarding entity usually attempts to distribute the load evenly over each physical output port of the aggregated logical link.” (emphasis added))). See Dec. 25–28. Thus, in the Decision, we found neither Petitioner nor its declarant had explained sufficiently, let alone with particularity, why the skilled artisan, but for hindsight, would have understood Bruckman to teach the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, of which the physical links are subject to the Designating Limitations, as recited, for example, in claim 1. Indeed, we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments in its Petition as to the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, and having reviewed the Request, remain unpersuaded. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”).” slip op. at 4
Nonecites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,768,928
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.