• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Slyde Analytics, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00002 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–24 unpatentable, principally because the asserted combinations did not establish the required full-display card replacement limitations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record before us, we conclude Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’922 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and 2-3 years of experience in the research, design, development, or testing of graphical user interfaces, touchscreens, and mobile devices, with additional education substituting for the experience and vice-versa.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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))). Petitioner asserts that “Petitioner does not believe any term requires construction.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner asserts that it “believes that claim construction is not required to resolve any issues.” Prelim. Resp. 7. We agree that on this record it is not necessary to conduct express claim construction for any term. C.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner adds: “It would have been obvious to apply the same teaching to Figure 5B and to a wearable device such as a watch,” referring to Louch’s description in paragraph 67 that widget 402 “can consume the entire display area 406 or a portion thereof.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 51–59, 116). No reasoning or rationale, however, is provided in the Petition for sizing the scrolling widgets to fill the whole or entirety of the display. Only a conclusory statement of obviousness is provided in the footnote. We have reviewed each of the cited paragraphs in Dr. Bederson’s Declaration and could find nothing supportive in that regard in any of cited paragraphs 51–59 for Petitioner’s conclusory statement about sizing the scrolling widgets to the whole or entirety of the display. There is one sentence in the last cited paragraph, paragraph 116 of Dr. Bederson’s Declaration, which provides a reasoning for sizing the scrolling widgets to be the whole or entirety of the display. However, we decline to consider it, because “[a]rguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Also, embedding reasoning in the expert’s Declaration and not expressly stating the same in the Petition fail to give Patent Owner adequate notice to respond. Patent Owner did not respond to this extraneous argument, improperly incorporated by reference from Dr. Bederson’s Declaration into the Petition.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,651,922
• Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01201 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, or 5 obvious over either asserted reference combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record before us, we conclude Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of any challenged claim of the RE ’117 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “We adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except that we delete the qualifier “at least,” which renders the statement vague by rendering the scope of ordinary skill unbounded at the top. This level of ordinary skill appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).9 C.” slip op. at 9

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

    “1. “display panel” According to Petitioner, “display panel” means “a flat type screen on which images are displayed, such as a Liquid Crystal Display or Plasma Display Panel.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner improperly limits “display panel” to only a “screen” on which images are displayed. Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner states, however, that “construction of this term does not impact the issues in this proceeding.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that “display panel” includes Liquid Crystal Display and Plasma Display Panel. Therefore, it is not necessary to construe “display panel” for purposes of this decision. “circuit board mounting part” 2. Petitioner proposes a construction for “circuit board mounting part” which appears in each of claims 1, 2, and 5. Pet. 19–25. Our decision, however, does not depend on any construction of the term “circuit board mounting part.” Thus, it is not necessary to construe this term.” slip op. at 11

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

    “disclosed in Figure 1, especially since “the text of the ’117 patent does not limit the entry/exit of the cooling paths.” Prelim. Reply 2. However, given that the goal of the RE ’117 patent is to avoid inter-heating by providing separate cooling fluid paths, as discussed above, it is not consistent with the Specification to have mixing of the two cooling fluid paths within the panel display device. We are not reading an extraneous limitation from the Specification into the claim. Rather, we are interpreting the limitation “separated from each other” in light of the Specification, which is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Longitude Licensing Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01123 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–4 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’233 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for” a person of ordinary skill. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 17). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 6. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and which is supported by expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Specifically, the Specification of the ’233 patent states: In this manner, the silicon pillars 5 do not necessarily surround the contact plug 31 in ′-shape and it is satisfactory if the silicon pillars 5 are uniformly arranged with respect to the metal contact plug 31, i.e. the maximum interval between the metal contact plug 31 and the silicon pillar 5 is twice or less the minimum interval between the metal contact plug 31 and the silicon pillar 5.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Endoh and Hwang rests on Endoh’s expression of a need to connect common source diffused layer 9 to a common source line above the top of the semiconductor pillars, and because Petitioner has presented no such evidence of a need in Endoh, Petitioner provides no reason to combine Endoh and Hwang to arrive at claim limitation 1.5. Id. at 17–18. We agree with Patent Owner. Endoh does not appear to teach a position of a common source line CSL and, thus, does not express a need for a means, such as a vertical contact plug, to connect common source diffused layer 9 to a common source line CSL above the top of pillar-shaped silicon layer 2. Dr. Lee’s testimony largely repeats the arguments in the Petition and, thus, does not provide any additional persuasive evidence from which we might conclude that Endoh’s device has a common source line CSL above pillar-shaped silicon layer 2, or any evidence that placement of a common source line CSL above pillar-shaped silicon layer 2 would have been obvious. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–68, 97–100, 103–105. Thus, we are not persuaded that” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,379,233
• Uv Engineering Solutions LLC v. Trojan Technologies Group UlcInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2023 · IPR2023-01015 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5 and 8–24 were unpatentable over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2022).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The primary dispute between the parties is whether the person having ordinary skill in the art works with lamps generally (Petitioner) or works with ultraviolet lamps for fluid treatment systems (Patent Owner). Although the specification of the ’654 patent focuses on ultraviolet lamps for fluid treatment systems (see Ex. 1001, 1:24–2:29), the claims of the patent are not so limited. Rather, the claims broadly claim “lamps” without reciting any field of use. See id. at 6:2–8:24. Because the claims are not limited to ultraviolet lamps or fluid treatment centers, Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill is more consistent with the claims. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed description of the person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Because construction of the disputed claim limitation is not necessary to resolve the controversy, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have “modif[ied] the terminal pins 126, 128, 130, and 132 of Ellner to be angled relative to the longitudinal axis as shown in Titchener so as to create a reliable connection between cables as disclosed in Titchener.” Pet. 12. Petitioner further argues that “[s]uch a modification would be a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., angled connectors 5a and 5b of Titchener) for another (i.e., non-angled terminal pins 126, 128, 130, and 132 of Ellner) to obtain predictable results.” Id. at 12–13. According to Petitioner, the combination of the teachings of Ellner and Titchener result in a lamp in which “each of the first elongate electrical connector (i.e., terminal pin 126, 128 modified to be angled as shown in Titchener) and the second elongate connector (i.e., terminal pin 130, 132 modified to be angled as shown in Titchener) configured to form an oblique angle with respect to the longitudinal axis.” Id. at 13.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,167,654
• Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP v. Xcential Corp.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · DER2022-00004 · APJ Justin T Arbes · DER · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that Respondent’s claims 1–5 were the same or substantially the same as the allegedly disclosed invention.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that claims 1–5 of Respondent’s ’233 application are the same or substantially the same as the invention allegedly disclosed to Respondent. Consequently, Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing of derivation as to Respondent’s claims 1–5 to warrant institution of this proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 135(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(b)(3)(i). III. CONCLUSION Based on the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner, substantial evidence, unrebutted, does not support a conclusion that the claims of Respondent’s ’233 application constitute derived inventions. Therefore, we do not institute a derivation proceeding.” slip op. at 29

  • BurdenDenied

    “same or substantially the same as (i.e., patentably indistinct from) the invention allegedly disclosed to Respondent. As an initial matter, we note that the Petition does not specifically compare the allegedly disclosed invention as a whole to Respondent’s claim 1 and explain “why” they are the same or substantially the same. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(b)(3)(i). Rather, Petitioner argues that Mr. Agnello conceived and communicated certain general concepts, then cites certain groups of claim limitations for each concept (without tying such arguments to the particular language of claim 1). See Pet. 34–39 (addressing the preamble of claim 1), 39–41 (grouping limitations [a] and [b] under the general concept of “creating a ‘snapshot document’ including at ‘least one provision of law to be changed’”), 42–46 (grouping limitations [c]–[f] as “known concepts of ‘receiving changes to the snapshot document’ and ‘creating an updated snapshot document’”), 46–50 (grouping limitations [i]–[l] as “known concepts of ‘analyzing the updated snapshot document’”), 50–56 (grouping limitations [n]–[q] under the general concept of “analyzing the XML changes document to generate a bill representation”).5 Petitioner, in its supplemental paper, also ambiguously identifies 37 pages of the Petition as showing where it articulated the invention allegedly disclosed to Respondent. See Supp. 1–2 (citing Pet. 1, 2, 6, 9–13, 17–20, 28, 29, 33–47, 49–55, 58). To determine whether Petitioner has satisfied the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(b)(3)(i), we consider the differences between Respondent’s claim 1 and the invention allegedly disclosed to Respondent, and then assess the arguments in the Petition, including those at the cited pages, to determine whether, notwithstanding those differences, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the two are patentably indistinct.6” slip op. at 19

  None
  Patents in suitUS 11,989,794
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. / Beijing Boe Display Technology Co. et al. v. Element Capital Commercial Company Pte. LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00696 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claim 1 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any asserted Inukai-based ground rendered it unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) . The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner proposes that no formal claim constructions are necessary in this proceeding. Pet. 18. Patent Owner agrees. Prelim. Resp. 4. We determine that it is not necessary to construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374 (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 11

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a related field.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27); Prelim. Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–23). The parties, however, disagree about the work experience one of ordinary skill would have had. Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill would have had “at 1 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design and manufacturing.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). Patent Owner contends that one of ordinary skill would have had “at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of display device technology.” Prelim. Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 21–23). Both parties agree that “[a]dditional education can remedy lack of work experience and vice versa.” Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 5. We note that the ’760 patent and challenged claim concern both display device technology and integrated circuit design for display devices. The ’760 patent and challenged claim do not appear to concern integrated circuit manufacturing processes. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a related field and at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design for display devices. However our decision in this proceeding would not change if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “sufficiently show that Inukai 576 discloses a wiring portion that “crosses” a control line. As noted above, Petitioner acknowledges that the right protrusion’s “full outline is not explicitly shown,” but contends that one of ordinary skill “would have understood or found obvious that the protrusion would have been the same length as the protrusion on the right, due to the ‘endcap rule.’” Pet. 51. However, based on the present record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to provide sufficient support that the “endcap rule” is universally applied. In this regard, we find reasonable Dr. Silzars’s testimony that the “endcap rule” is, “at best, a design generalization which may be used in some applications for semiconductor manufacturing, heavily dependent on what materials are used, what the purpose of the semiconductor [is] and especially the manufacturing process.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 60. Petitioner relies on the Borodovsky patent, but Borodovsky merely describes the general concept that an endcap of a transistor gate may extend some minimum distance beyond an active region so as to ensure that any rounding of the endcap does not occur over the active region. Ex. 1010, 4:21–33; Ex. 2001 ¶ 63; Pet. 52–53. Borodovsky, however, does not suggest how the rule would have been applied to Inukai 576. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 63. Petitioner also does not point to anything in Borodovsky that states that the “endcap rule” requires gate electrodes of the same size or length. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. Borodovsky’s design rule merely requires that the endcap extends at least a minimum length, not an exact length, beyond the active region, and states that “other size up amounts may be used.” Ex. 1010, 9:42–46; Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. Thus, assuming Inukai 576’s protrusions are of different length, as pictured, Petitioner’s evidence does not show persuasively that the shorter protrusion would violate the “endcap rule” merely because it is shorter than the other protrusion. We note that Dr. Liu testifies that one of ordinary skill would “have known that in order to maintain a consistent current voltage characteristic for the double-gate transistors, the two channel portions of the double-gate structure would be made as uniformly identical as possible.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 114. Dr. Liu, however, does not provide any evidence or citation for this statement. Id. Dr. Liu also states that “[t]he endcap rule applies to all gates fabricated in the transistor,” so one of ordinary skill “would have understood that the two gates over transistor 107 have equal length,” and thus “the two protrusions would extend equal distance beyond the semiconductor layer.” Id. Again, however, Dr. Liu does not explain why the “endcap rule” would require or suggest this outcome, particularly because the description of the “endcap rule” merely requires that gates have a certain minimum length beyond the semiconductor layer they intersect, not that the gates be of equal length. Id.” slip op. at 35

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,525,760
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. / Beijing Boe Display Technology Co. et al. v. Element Capital Commercial Company Pte. LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00605 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 7, 9, 14, and 15 would have been obvious over Masuda and Inoue.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable 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 based on the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “show a reasonable likelihood that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Inoue and Masuda as Petitioner proposes, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. First, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s motivation to combine is deficient because it fails to sufficiently account for the differences between the active matrix system of Inoue and the passive matrix system of Masuda. Patent Owner introduces testimony from Dr. Silzars that passive and active matrix displays “differ in their structure and functions”” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artDecided for patent owner

    “Second, Patent Owner argues that Masuda is not analogous art because Masuda and the claimed invention of the ’736 patent are directed towards fundamentally different types of displays. Prelim. Resp. 30–44. Patent Owner asserts that “Masuda is directed to the field of endeavor of passive matrix displays utilizing field emission display technology.” Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 1–2, 34, 42; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 38, 58). According to Patent Owner, “the problem of visual interference caused by horizontal stripes or vertical stripes that is described in Masuda” is “inherent in passive matrix displays due to their low pixel density causing poor display resolution.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 73). This low pixel density, Patent Owner contends, “is related to the fact that, in passive matrix displays, the addition of more rows/columns of pixels means that there is less time to stimulate the pixels because passive matrix displays have no mechanism for storing an image in a row while other rows are being written,” causing the maximum resolution to be “significantly limited.” Id. (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 73). “In contrast,” Patent Owner argues, “active matrix displays include a mechanism for storing an image in a row while other rows are being written, and therefore achieve much greater resolution than passive matrix displays, which avoids the problem mentioned in Masuda.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 73– 74). In contrast to Masuda, Patent Owner argues that the field of endeavor of remaining challenged claims 7 and 9 is “an active matrix display,” and the field of endeavor of remaining challenged claims 14 and15 is “an OLED display.” Prelim. Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 58). Specifically, Patent Owner argues that claim 7 (and claim 9, which depends from claim 7) includes the feature of “the first and second effective optical regions having respective electronic circuits to drive the electro-optical elements provided in the first and second optical regions,” which specifies that the claim includes electronic circuits that are in element forming regions and drive electro optical elements, which is a characteristics of active matrix displays. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 59–60; Ex. 1001, 5:29–35, 6:1–4). Claim 14, according to Patent Owner, includes the feature of “each of the first electrooptical elements and the second electro-optical elements being an electroluminescent element” which indicates that claim 14 (and claim 15 which depends from it) “is directed towards the field of endeavor of an OLED display.” Id. (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 62). Additionally, Patent Owner argues, the general structure and method of operation of passive matrix displays and active matrix displays are substantially different. Id. at 39–42. Furthermore, according to Patent Owner, Masuda is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Prelim. Resp. 42. Patent Owner asserts that “Masuda is directed to the problem of visual interference caused by horizontal stripes or vertical stripes due to differences in luminosity between rows or differences in luminosity between columns,” which is “a problem that occurs specifically in passive matrix displays due to their low pixel density causing poor display resolution.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 21; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 71, 73). In contrast, Patent Owner argues, “the ’736 patent is directed towards the problem of how to reduce image distortions and color irregularities caused by directional viewing variations,” which occur in “active matrix displays in which pixel[] circuits have different shapes and/or pitches in the column and row directions.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:11–34; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 69, 71). Patent Owner further contends that “the problem related to the interference effects of horizontal and vertical stripes of Masuda does not exist in embodiments of the ’736 patent” because “active matrix displays included a mechanism for storing an image in a row while other rows are being written and achieved much greater resolution than passive matrix displays, which avoids the problem mentioned in Masuda.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 73– 74).” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In light of this testimony from Dr. Silzars, Petitioner fails to present sufficient evidence at this stage of the proceeding that of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the proposed combination. Petitioner introduces testimony from Dr. Liu stating that one of ordinary skill “would have understood that Masuda’s specific checkerboard pixel pattern could be useful for many different types of displays,” and that the problem Masuda addresses (difference in luminosity by having more of one color element than another) “is independent of the particular technology used to implement those color elements.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 74; see id. ¶ 83. Dr. Liu also relies on the Kwon patent that uses a similar arrangement in a “plasma display device.” Id. ¶ 75. Dr. Liu further testifies that, because “Inoue does not restrict how color forming pixels must be laid out,” one of ordinary skill implementing Inoue “would have been motivated to look for complementary techniques to further reduce brightness variation,” such as the one disclosed in Masuda. Id. ¶ 79; see id. ¶ 81. Dr. Liu, however, fails to present sufficient testimony that the combined system would have effectively reduced Inoue’s luminosity differences, which are described as being due to variations of threshold voltages of the pixel unit drive transistors rather than the brightness variations resulting from differences in pixel colors which Masuda identifies. As noted above, Patent Owner introduces detailed evidence from Dr. Silzars explaining the many technical differences between passive and active matrix display devices, and why Masuda’s solution would not have been applicable to Inoue. Petitioner does not introduce contrary evidence on this point. Additionally, the fact that the Kwon reference discloses the use of a similar checkerboard pixel pattern in a plasma device does not show that such a pattern would have been advantageous in an active matrix device, or how one of ordinary skill would have implemented such an arrangement in Inoue’s system. For similar reasons, we also agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Silzars that Petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Inoue’s active matrix display with the Masuda’s solution for a passive matrix device.” slip op. at 31

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,259,736
• Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00593 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 22–62 were unpatentable under the asserted §103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 39; see also id. at 45–46 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt.” slip op. at 26

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner

    “E. Real Parties in Interest Petitioner identifies Google LLC and YouTube, LLC as real parties in interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies Robocast, Inc., as a real party in interest. Paper 5, 2.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner supports its proposal with testimony by Dr. Schmandt. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 16. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. See id. (Dr. Schmandt testifying that “Patent Owner’s proposed articulation is not meaningfully different” and that his analysis, opinions and conclusions . . . would not change if Patent Owner’s articulation were applied”). Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1123, 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 10–12. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 22 and 46, as well as dependent claim 45, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1123, 2–13; Ex. 2107, 5; Prelim. Resp. 9. For purposes of this Decision, we accord all other terms recited in the challenged claims their plain and ordinary meaning. See Ex. 1123, 17–20, 26–29 (court adopting plain and ordinary meaning of “plurality of accessible resources,” “content,” “without requiring user input,” “in accordance with said show structure,” “providing,” and “search results”); see Prelim. Resp. 8 (Patent Owner advocating that “any additional claim language be[] accorded its plain and ordinary meaning”).” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,965,932
• Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00592 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 and 63–67 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 42; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals. Second, we have also considered Mr. Schmandt’s testimony, and he provides no meaningful additional information to support reading Shimizu as Petitioner advocates. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119, 121–128. In testimony not cited by Petitioner, Mr. Schmandt admits that “Shimizu does not appear to disclose further details about how duration information is specified or stored within its system, or whether such intervals between nodes can be changed.” Id. ¶ 120. This testimony undermines Petitioner’s position that Shimizu’s hypertext nodes include duration information. Mr. Schmandt elaborates in testimony that Petitioner cites, but does not explain: In a real-world implementation of the proposed combination, for example, the display time could have been specified within the node information structure 9 of Shimizu. I note that node information structure 9 in Shimizu also contains display procedure slot 62 (Fig. 6), which points to “a procedure program function used when the node in question is to be displayed on the screen.” (Shimizu, 6:52-55.) Shimizu thus contemplates that node information structure 9 may contain information about how the node will be displayed to the user, and as such, it would have been obvious that durational information could also have been included as part of node information structure 9. This durational amount could have been a default display time specified by the user, or a display time specific to the node in question, as explained above. * * * Shimizu itself clearly contemplates the ability to customize the display of nodes, and as explained above, node information structure 9 (Fig. 6) includes display procedure slot 62 which points to a program function or procedure used to display the node content, thus making clear that node information structure 9 can hold information about how the node will be displayed. Id. ¶¶ 124, 128. Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that Shimizu would need to be modified for its hypertext nodes to include duration information is strong evidence that Shimizu does not disclose hypertext nodes that include duration information. This testimony (from ¶ 124) also suggests that Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times could be included in the procedure program function to which display procedure slot 62 points, rather than in the hypertext node, thereby providing additional evidence Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times are included in structure other than hypertext nodes. See also Ex. 1003, 6:52–55.” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web.” Pet. 6–7. Petitioner adds that “[s]uch a person could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–17). Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately 3-5 years of professional experience with these topics.” Prelim. Resp. 6. In addition, Patent Owner say that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Petitioner supports its proposal with testimony by Mr. Schmandt. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 16. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. See id. (Mr. Schmandt testifying that “Patent Owner’s proposed articulation is not meaningfully different” and that his “analysis, opinions and conclusions . . . would not change if Patent Owner’s articulation were applied”). Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1023, 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 10–12. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 1 and 63, as well as in certain dependent claims, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1023, 2–13; Ex. 2007, 5; Prelim. Resp. 9. Third, we construe “interactively variable duration information,” which is recited in each of challenged claims 1, 11, 12, and 64, as “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1023, 22–23; Prelim. Resp. 12–15.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 42; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals.” slip op. at 27

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,965,932
• Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00591 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 22–36 and 39–45 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted obviousness grounds would succeed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 42–43; see also id. at 48 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). We agree with Patent Owner. In its Summary of the Invention, Shimizu describes “mak[ing] it possible to build with ease an application program illustratively causing the display of the nodes to be switched in a specific order and at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1103, with the predetermined intervals being included in the application program, rather than the hypertext nodes. Similarly, in its Description of the Related Art, Shimizu describes “mak[ing] it possible to create an application program that may be displayed on the screen by reading, from primary or secondary storage and within a predetermined time, the node information held by the nodes that are linked sequentially starting from a particular node.” Id. at 3:12–16 (emphasis added). This passage, too, is better read as disclosing that the predetermined times are included in the application program, rather than the hypertext nodes. Neither of Petitioner’s cited passages states that the hypertext nodes include predetermined intervals/times.” slip op. at 24

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

    “1 Petitioner filed a paper explaining its basis for filing multiple petitions challenging the ’451 patent and arguing that we should not exercise discretion to deny one of the petitions pursuant to the guidance in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) at 59 (“Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.”). Paper 3. Patent Owner filed an objection to Petitioner’s filing of multiple petitions, arguing that we should deny one of them pursuant to the Trial Practice Guide’s guidance. Paper 8. Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach whether multiple petitions are appropriate to challenge the ’451 patent.” slip op. at 3

  • Parallel petitionsNot reached

    “1 Petitioner filed a paper explaining its basis for filing multiple petitions challenging the ’451 patent and arguing that we should not exercise discretion to deny one of the petitions pursuant to the guidance in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) at 59 (“Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.”). Paper 3. Patent Owner filed an objection to Petitioner’s filing of multiple petitions, arguing that we should deny one of them pursuant to the Trial Practice Guide’s guidance. Paper 8. Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach whether multiple petitions are appropriate to challenge the ’451 patent.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web,” and “could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 13–18). Patent Owner, without citing evidence, contends that a skilled artisan “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems”; “would also have approximately 3–5 years of professional experience with these topics”; and “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and which is supported by expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). However, we do not see a substantial difference between the parties’ proposals. Thus, our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,155,451

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.