• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00578 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 6, 8, and 9 were obvious.

  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 a petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, and accompanying exhibits and evidence, we determine Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim in the inter partes review. Therefore, we deny institution of an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’826 patent on all challenges in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends as follows: The ’826 Patent describes and claims aspects and functionality of cable and satellite television signal processing and communication systems. As of the alleged September 8, 2011 priority date, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ’826 Patent would have had at least: i) a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering or an equivalent subject and three or more years of experience working in the field of cable and/or satellite signal processing and communication systems; ii) a Master’s in electrical engineering or an equivalent subject and one or more years of experience working in the field of cable and/or satellite television signal processing and communication systems; or iii) a Ph.D. in electrical engineering or an equivalent subject and at least some experience working in the field of cable and/or satellite television signal processing and/or communication systems. Additional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30–31) (internal citation omitted). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we agree with and will use Petitioner’s proposed level for this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The parties indicate that the district court in the Charter case (2:22-cv-00125) construed “network management messages” in the claims of the ’826 patent to mean “messages which report on the network based on the measured characteristics.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1009, 29); Prelim. Resp. 10. Petitioner contends this construction is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language. Pet. 25. Patent Owner asserts that, in the Cox case (2:23-cv-01049), the parties agreed that “network management messages” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001, 2). Patent Owner asserts that its arguments “do not turn on the construction of ‘network management messages’ so there is no need to construe that, or any other, term of the ’826 Patent claims at this stage of the proceeding.” Id. As there is no controversy between the parties regarding any claim language that we would need to resolve in order to render our decision in this case, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms without specific construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “While Petitioner mentions portions of Renken that it considers relevant to limitation 1h, Petitioner does not explain how it reads each aspect of limitation 1h on Renken. For example, Petitioner does not identify what in Renken corresponds to the “network management messages,” what corresponds to the “measured characteristic of the received signal” that “is different than said network management messages,” and what discloses that the “measured characteristic” is the basis for “controlling transmission of the network management messages” from the “receiver” “back to the headend.” b) Conclusion for Claim 1 Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood to prevail in demonstrating that Renken in view of the general knowledge of a POSITA discloses limitations 1a and 1h of claim 1.7 Thus, we do not reach the parties’ contentions concerning other claim limitations or Renken’s priority date.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,825,826
• ABB Inc. v. Roboticvisiontech, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01426 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Corke, alone or with Wei-I, rendered any challenged claim obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. As discussed above, we agree with Petitioner that the claim term “object space” should be construed in accordance with the definition provided in the specification of the ’237 patent. See supra § III.B; Pet. 8. The ’237 patent defines “object space” as “a reference frame defined with respect to, and therefore rigid to, the object 18.” Ex. 1001, 3:25–26. Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how or why Corke’s camera calibration matrix, C, which “represents the relationship between 3-D world coordinates and their corresponding 2-D image coordinates” (Ex. 1004, 138 (emphasis added)), would relate in any way to an “object space” (i.e., a reference frame defined with respect to, and therefore rigid to, an object). Petitioner does not identify sufficiently any object in Corke with respect to which the world coordinate system of Corke is defined. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s conclusory assertion that “the camera pose obtained by Corke’s algorithm is defined with respect to the object space” “if the 3D coordinates are specified with respect to the object space.” See Pet. 20 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not provide adequate reasoning to support why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered, or even envisioned, Corke’s 3D coordinates to be specified with respect to an object or an object space. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s unsupported conditional statement (“if the 3D coordinates are specified with respect to the object space”) is insufficient to establish obviousness in this instance. See Prelim. Resp. 15. Dr. Hutchinson’s testimony offers little support. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 112. Dr. Hutchinson’s declaration largely mirrors the Petition and lacks sufficient additional explanation. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (determining that declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when the testimony merely repeats conclusory statements from the petition); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. As discussed above, we agree with Petitioner that the claim term “object space” should be construed in accordance with the definition provided in the specification of the ’237 patent. See supra § III.B; Pet. 8. The ’237 patent defines “object space” as “a reference frame defined with respect to, and therefore rigid to, the object 18.” Ex. 1001, 3:25–26. Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how or why Corke’s camera calibration matrix, C, which “represents the relationship between 3-D world coordinates and their corresponding 2-D image coordinates” (Ex. 1004, 138 (emphasis added)), would relate in any way to an “object space” (i.e., a reference frame defined with respect to, and therefore rigid to, an object). Petitioner does not identify sufficiently any object in Corke with respect to which the world coordinate system of Corke is defined. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s conclusory assertion that “the camera pose obtained by Corke’s algorithm is defined with respect to the object space” “if the 3D coordinates are specified with respect to the object space.” See Pet. 20 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not provide adequate reasoning to support why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered, or even envisioned, Corke’s 3D coordinates to be specified with respect to an object or an object space. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s unsupported conditional statement (“if the 3D coordinates are specified with respect to the object space”) is insufficient to establish obviousness in this instance. See Prelim. Resp. 15.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Hutchinson’s testimony offers little support. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 112. Dr. Hutchinson’s declaration largely mirrors the Petition and lacks sufficient additional explanation. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (determining that declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when the testimony merely repeats conclusory statements from the petition); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached

    “E. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution in view of the parallel district court proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 30–36. Petitioner argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate in this case. Pet. 79–81. Because we are not persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim (see supra §§ III.C., III.D.), we need not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial under § 314(a).” slip op. at 20

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,095,237
• Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,320,264
• Hebei Huatong Wires And Cables Group Co, Ltd. v. Gulf Coast Downhole Technologies LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2023 · IPR2023-00908 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For institution, “[t]he ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard is a somewhat flexible standard that allows the Board room to exercise judgment.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 53 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find, upon review of the information in the Petition and evidence of record, that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Hurley discloses that its separation layer 52, even when formed of flexible armor (see Pet. 26) is structured to be hermetically sealed or maintain a positive or negative pressure as required by claim 1. Petitioner fails to direct us to sufficient evidence to support a finding that separation layer 52 is structured to be hermetically sealed or maintain a positive or negative pressure. Dr. Ballato does not provide any testimony in support.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s contention with respect to motivation is directed merely to a motivation to consult Bowker. That is, Petitioner’s contention is directed to whether Bowker is analogous art to the ’565 patent. We agree it is. However, “[o]bviousness requires, inter alia, a finding that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of prior art in such a way that the combination discloses the claimed limitations.” Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (emphasis added). This inquiry is separate from the requirement that the prior art is analogous. See Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1003–04 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Prior art references are applicable to the obviousness inquiry only when they are analogous to the claims being challenged.”); Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., (denying institution after determining that showing that the references are analogous art and could be combined does not necessarily establish a sufficient rationale for combining the references). The Petition does not provide any contentions directed to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bowker’s teachings with Hurley to arrive at the claimed invention. As such, the Petition fails to provide a reason, supported by rational underpinnings, to combine the teachings of Hurley and Bowker and, accordingly, fails to demonstrate obviousness. Cf. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (stating that, to facilitate the analysis of an obviousness position, the proponent should provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). Dr. Ballato’s Declaration adds nothing to Petitioner’s analysis. The Declaration merely repeats what is in the Petition and provides no support for the testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (according “little weight” to declaration testimony that contains a verbatim restatement of a petition’s conclusory assertions without additional supporting evidence or reasoning). Accordingly, the Petition fails to provide information sufficient to demonstrate for institution that the combination of Hurley and Bowker renders claims 1–5, 11, 13, 18–20, and 22 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hurley and Bowker. Cf. Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 81 F.4th 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“We held that, under the [Administrative” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s contention with respect to motivation is directed merely to a motivation to consult Bowker. That is, Petitioner’s contention is directed to whether Bowker is analogous art to the ’565 patent. We agree it is. However, “[o]bviousness requires, inter alia, a finding that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of prior art in such a way that the combination discloses the claimed limitations.” Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (emphasis added). This inquiry is separate from the requirement that the prior art is analogous. See Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1003–04 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Prior art references are applicable to the obviousness inquiry only when they are analogous to the claims being challenged.”); Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,581,565
• Lightricks Ltd. v. Plotagraph, Inc. And Sascha ConnellyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00569 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted AEM, IMU-Okabe, or IMU-Okabe-Li ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least one 1–2 years of experience in image processing and animation,” and “[l]ess education could have been compensated with more experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29). Petitioner adds that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have also been familiar with existing systems for image processing and animation and understood how to implement such systems.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46). Patent Owner indicates that it proposes “construction for certain claim language below,” but it does not actually identify any claim language for construction, let alone provide any constructions. Prelim. Resp. 16–17. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “First, the disclosure of AEM that Petitioner relies on for teaching selecting certain pixels to be transparent or nontransparent pertains to “compositing,” i.e., creating a composite image from multiple images. Ex. 1003, 315–16. AEM states specifically: “To create a composite from multiple images, you can make parts of one or more of the images transparent so that other images can show through.” Id. at 315. Thus, each pixel in the composite image is either transparent or nontransparent such that every pixel is “selected” under Petitioner’s usage of the term “selecting.” The possibility that some of these pixels, in theory, could extend along a non-linear motion path of a Deform pin is mere happenstance—we are not directed to any disclosure in AEM of actually selecting a set of pixels (either transparent or nontransparent) that extend along a non-linear motion path. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a claim limitation that requires contiguity). We are not persuaded on the record before us that AEM’s disclosure of designating pixels as transparent or nontransparent satisfies selecting a first set of pixels extending along a non-linear pathway.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,301,119
• DISH Network Corp. / DISH Network LLC et al. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00391 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Williams and Pugel would have motivated a skilled artisan to make the claimed combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “4. Summary We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Williams and Pugel to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that at least one claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Williams and Pugel.” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contends that the outcome of this proceeding is determined by the level of ordinary skill in the art. We apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art except that we delete the qualifier “at least” which renders the level of skill ambiguous and may encompass levels of skill beyond ordinary. We consider Petitioner’s proposed level of skill to be consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’576 patent and the prior art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We also consider the proposed level of skill to be reflective of the education and experience a person of ordinary skill would have had.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther

    “Given that no claim terms are in controversy, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Accordingly, we construe the claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claims 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).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “digitization earlier in Williams’s system by locating an ADC at its front end. However, as Pugel shows, it is not simply a matter of moving an ADC earlier in the processing, because the ADC requires Pugel’s analog processing section 110 including AGC 112 (optional), bandpass filter 114, amplifier 116, and AGC 118. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 16–18. Petitioner does not adequately address the fact that the ADC requires this pre-processing section to filter out noise over the entire broadband signal, which adds complexity and expense to the system, in determining whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references at the time of the invention. See Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“a reasonable fact finder could have found these tradeoffs to yield an unappetizing combination); Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Board weighed competing evidence regarding the relevant tradeoffs and concluded that the combination would negate a key benefit of one of the references which would have outweighed any reason to combine). We also agree with Patent Owner that substituting digital components for analog ones is not as straightforward as Petitioner alleges. Prelim. Resp. 48; Pet. 41. According to Petitioner, Williams performs the tuning (i.e., channel selection), frequency translating, and signal combining in the analog domain. Petitioner contends that tuning and frequency translating could be performed in the digital domain using digital equivalents of Williams’s analog components. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–119). However, Petitioner does not identify adequately what these digital equivalents are and whether they were available at the time of the ’576 patent. Petitioner further contends that signal combining could be accomplished by converting signals to analog before summing at Williams’s summer 68, or by summing the signals in the digital domain and converting the output of summer 68 to analog. Pet. 41. Petitioner does not address the complexity or costs associated with additional DACs or a digital combiner in its proposed combination and whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references in light of these disadvantages. And Patent Owner rightly notes that Pugel does not disclose a digital combiner.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,130,576
• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00392 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims: claims 9–12 lacked a sufficient obviousness showing, and claims 1–8 and 13–19 were disclaimed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had (i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and three or more years of experience working in television signal processing and satellite communications; (ii) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in television signal processing and satellite communications; or (iii) a doctoral degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in television signal processing and satellite communications. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner contends that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 13 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its Preliminary Response. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Thus, rather than filling a purported gap in Carnero’s disclosure, Petitioner’s proposed combination essentially requires replacing Carnero’s input device 16 with Fisk’s server 56. But neither the Petition nor Dr. Schonfeld explains sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use server 56 instead of input unit 16 to input data into the microprocessors of converters 4. See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 119. More importantly, setting aside the problem of replacing input unit 16 for the sake of argument, we disagree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use server 56 to input that frequency data into signal processing unit 400 “based on requests for programs it receives from the LCUs,” as argued by Petitioner. See Pet. 38 (emphasis added). Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that the requests for programs generated by Fisk’s LCUs are intended to select channels from a predetermined lineup of channels and are not disclosed as being able to change the channels in the predetermined lineup, such that server 56 “can only distribute the decoded programs it is fed.” See Prelim. Resp. 20–21. By way of example, Patent Owner contends that Figure 6 of Fisk depicts server 56 as having three pre-programmed satellite decoders (SAT1, SAT2, and SAT3) that” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,542,715
• Lightricks Ltd. v. Plotagraph, Inc. And Sascha ConnellyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00152 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 42). Patent Owner proposes claim constructions for “set of pixels,” “pixels that lie along a link/length of pathway between the starting point and the ending point,” and “in a loop.” Prelim. Resp. 17–28. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “First, the disclosure of AEM that Petitioner relies on for teaching selecting certain pixels to be transparent or nontransparent pertains to “compositing,” i.e., creating a composite image from multiple images. Ex. 1003, 315–16. AEM states specifically: “To create a composite from multiple images, you can make parts of one or more of the images transparent so that other images can show through.” Id. at 315. Thus, each pixel in the composite image is either transparent or nontransparent such that every pixel is “selected” under Petitioner’s usage of the term “selecting.” The possibility that some of these pixels, in theory, could extend along a non-linear motion path of a Deform pin is mere happenstance—we are not directed to any disclosure in AEM of actually selecting a set of pixels (either transparent or nontransparent) that extend along a non-linear motion path. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a claim limitation that requires contiguity). We are not persuaded on the record before us that AEM’s disclosure of designating pixels as transparent or nontransparent satisfies selecting a first set of pixels extending along a nonlinear pathway. Second, Petitioner’s argument relies on AEM teaching that “AECS6 necessarily allows a user . . . to select any or all pixels of the layer to be nontransparent and thus included in the layer’s mesh to be moved and animated.” Pet. 21. We disagree, however, that AEM discloses selecting pixels to be nontransparent and including these pixels in a mesh to be moved and animated. That AECS6 arguably allows selected nontransparent pixels to be included in a mesh is not sufficient to establish that AEM discloses doing so. Petitioner contends that AECS6 and the screenshots of AECS6 created by Dr. Greenspun establish the background knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art but does not explain adequately why AECS6’s alleged capability would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to understand AEM to teach selecting pixels of a layer to be nontransparent and including the selected pixels in the layer’s mesh. See Pet. 17 n.6 (quoting Qualcomm, 24 F.4th at 1376). Again, any pixels selected to be nontransparent being included in a mesh is mere happenstance.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,558,342
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01561 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–14 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness grounds, and institution would be inefficient.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “In claim 1, “server” first appears in limitation 1b’s recitation of “a server.” Ex. 1001, 21:27–28. Every subsequent mention of “server” in claim 1 recites “the server.” Id. at 21:37, 21:40, 21:48, 21:51, 21:53, 21:60. Thus, grammatically, each time claim 1 recites “the server,” it refers back to the same “server” as in all previous recitations. Accordingly, claim 1’s plain meaning refers to the same server each and every time it recites “server.” See Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, --- F.4th ---, 2023 WL 2778774 *3–4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2023) (explaining claim language reciting element with definite article refers to same element previously recited) (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Harari v. Lee, 655 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Neither party argues that any reason exists to construe claim 1’s recitations of “a server” and “the server” differently from their plain meanings. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. We construe every one of claim 1’s recitations of “server” as referring to the same server (the “same-server requirement”).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier. As discussed above in Section II.B, we construe claim 1’s recitations of “the server” as all limited to the same server. Thus, as Petitioner contemplated, “the server” recited in limitation 1i is “limited to the same server as in antecedent [limitations 1e–1f].” Pet. 30. Petitioner inadequately supports its position that “Fletchall teaches that also.” Id. at 30–31. Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s explanations do not persuasively support their position that Fletchall teaches product database (121) and payment server (130) are the same server.4 Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212. For example, the observation that product database (121) and payment server (130) are part of system (100) and can communicate with one another via computer network (120) does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212; Prelim. Resp. 24. As Patent Owner 4 Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Shamos have some other basis for contending that Fletchall teaches using the same server in performing the actions recited in limitations 1f and 1i, they do not support that view with sufficiently persuasive evidence or explanation. argues, following Petitioner’s reasoning would lead to the untenable conclusion that any two components of system (100) that can communicate with one another via computer network (120), including mobile device (104) and product database (121), would be part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s contentions unpersuasive. We also find unavailing Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s observation that “Fletchall teaches that the product database 121 can be hosted on a merchant server . . . and be part of the common system 100 that includes payment server 130.” Pet. 31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 211. Hosting product database (121) on a merchant server does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Nor does including product database (121) and payment server (130) within system (100).” slip op. at 23

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

    “Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier. As discussed above in Section II.B, we construe claim 1’s recitations of “the server” as all limited to the same server. Thus, as Petitioner contemplated, “the server” recited in limitation 1i is “limited to the same server as in antecedent [limitations 1e–1f].” Pet. 30. Petitioner inadequately supports its position that “Fletchall teaches that also.” Id. at 30–31. Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s explanations do not persuasively support their position that Fletchall teaches product database (121) and payment server (130) are the same server.4 Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212. For example, the observation that product database (121) and payment server (130) are part of system (100) and can communicate with one another via computer network (120) does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212; Prelim. Resp. 24. As Patent Owner 4 Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Shamos have some other basis for contending that Fletchall teaches using the same server in performing the actions recited in limitations 1f and 1i, they do not support that view with sufficiently persuasive evidence or explanation. argues, following Petitioner’s reasoning would lead to the untenable conclusion that any two components of system (100) that can communicate with one another via computer network (120), including mobile device (104) and product database (121), would be part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s contentions unpersuasive. We also find unavailing Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s observation that “Fletchall teaches that the product database 121 can be hosted on a merchant server . . . and be part of the common system 100 that includes payment server 130.” Pet. 31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 211. Hosting product database (121) on a merchant server does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Nor does including product database (121) and payment server (130) within system (100).” slip op. at 23

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “functions (VTSAs) of the server 111, the server 130, and merchant server hosting the product database 121 into the same server.” Pet. 41. As explained above in Sections II.C.3.a–c, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing unpatentability of either of challenged independent claims 1 and 10 or any of challenged dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8, 9, and 11–14. Considering this, to the extent Petitioner’s arguments and evidence may demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of dependent claim 5 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier, we do not find that instituting inter partes review would use the Board’s or the parties’ resources efficiently. See 35 U.S.C. 316(b).” slip op. at 27

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• Peaklogic, Inc. v. Wave Neuroscience, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01527 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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 discussed below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the ’554 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Importantly, however, Dr. Silvetz does not cite anything to support his opinion that stimulation at a frequency above the peak alpha frequency moves the peak frequency. Id. Nor does Dr. Silvetz explain why such stimulation moves the peak frequency. Id. Accordingly, Dr. Silvetz’s testimony is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24 ,2022) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential) (finding that conclusory testimony that “does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support [that testimony] . . . is entitled to little weight”); 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.”); Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quoting Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to provide” slip op. at 18

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

    “a) Alleged express disclosure The evidence of record does not support Petitioner’s contention that Klimesch expressly discloses the intrinsic frequency limitation. Although Klimsech discloses treating subjects with rTMS at a frequency one Hz above the intrinsic frequency (IAF + 1 HZ), it does not disclose what effect such treatment has on the intrinsic frequency. See generally, Ex. 1005. Petitioner asserts that “stimulation at IAF + 1 Hz triggered increased EEG output in the EEG band of that stimulation frequency (IAF to IAF + 2 Hz) directly corresponding to enhanced alpha power in that EEG band.” Pet. 24. EEG power is, however, distinct from frequency. See e.g., Ex. 2002, Fig. 1A (spectral analysis plotting frequency on the x-axis and power on the y-axis). Thus, even if we were to credit Petitioner’s assertion that stimulation at IAF + 1 Hz “increased EEG output” and “enhanced alpha power,” such assertion does not support that Klimesch expressly discloses changing the frequency at which peak alpha power is observed.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “1. Claim 1 Petitioner relies on the same evidence discussed in connection with Grounds 1 and 2 to establish disclosure of the intrinsic frequency limitation. Pet. 39 (“For the reasons provided above in Grounds 1 and 2, both Klimesch and Jin disclose this element [the intrinsic frequency limitation] of claim 1. In particular, the recited movement is the natural, inherent consequence of applying a magnetic field to the human brain at or near the subject’s peak frequency in the alpha band”). We have already determined that this evidence is insufficient to support that Klimesch or Jin discloses the intrinsic frequency limitation. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that the combination of Klimesch and Jin renders claim 1 obvious.” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,480,554

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.