- SAP SE v. Teradata US, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 1, 2021 · IPR2021-01017 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, failing to show the claimed file management context in non-persistent memory.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’419 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have possessed at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science with at least two years of experience with database system development.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21–22). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have had “some combination of (1) more formal education and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21–22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of experience indefinitely without an upper bound, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’419 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that no claim terms require explicit construction at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 16. Patent Owner contends that in related district court litigation, Petitioner has proposed construing several terms in accordance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and Patent Owner faults Petitioner for not applying those constructions in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Based on the record before us, we need not construe any claim terms expressly to decide the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“does not show sufficiently that the combination of System R and Lorie teaches a “file management context” stored in “non-persistent memory.” See Prelim. Resp. 16–22. As an initial matter, Petitioner asserts that the “Current Page Table and associated data structures such as free-space bit maps” comprise the claimed “file management context” in “non-persistent memory,” but Petitioner does not cite any passage in System R disclosing that the current page table (or any associated data structure) resides “in memory” rather than “on disk,” as shown in Petitioner’s annotated version of System R’s Figure 7. See Pet. 28–35. Nor does Petitioner point to any disclosure in Lorie in support of its contention that the current page table in the System R database system is stored in non-persistent memory. See id.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,904,419 - Bright Data Ltd. v. Metacluster LT, UabInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 1, 2021 · IPR2021-00983 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted anticipation or obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“(a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines 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” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion (see generally Prelim. Resp.). The prior art itself demonstrates the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). in light of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, we determine an ordinarily skilled artisan is: an individual who had (1) a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in the field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science, or in an equivalent field that includes network engineering as a topic of study (hereinafter, “technical study”), plus at least one year of industry technical experience in the computer network field, such as serving as an engineer for an Internet service provider performing network design, development, or configuration tasks, or as a software developer for network communications software or related utility software, or (2) three years of full-time technical experience in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science or in an equivalent field that includes network engineering or network communications software (hereinafter, “technical fields”), or (3) an equivalent combination of academic study in technical study and work experience in the technical fields.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Proxy Rotator’ as ‘a system coupled of separate components implementing a specific method and responsible for collecting statistical data, proxy control, rotation, maintenance, and reporting’” (Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:4–7)). of separate components implementing a specific method and responsible for collecting statistical data, proxy control, rotation, maintenance, and reporting” (id. at 5:4–7). In accordance with the Specification’s “general terminology description,” we construe the term “Smart Proxy Rotator” as a system coupled of separate components implementing a specific method and responsible for collecting statistical data, proxy control, rotation, maintenance, and reporting.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“construed as “‘the portion of all proxy requests received by the SPR during a time period that the SPR will refer to a particular proxy provider,’ which may be equal to the weight assigned to that particular proxy provider divided by the sum of weights assigned to all proxy providers during the same time period” (Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 56)). Patent Owner’s definition requiring a “utilization threshold” to be a “portion of all proxy requests received by the SPR during a time period that the SPR will refer to a particular proxy provider” is too narrow. The ’948 Patent does not expressly define the term “utilization threshold,” and, instead, describes utilization thresholds using an example (id. at 8:1–8). The ’948 Patent states [o]ne of the usage examples can be the following: if one provider has a weight equal to 10, and the other provider has a weight equal to 20, the proxy rotator should use the second provider 66.6% of the time and the first provider 33.3% of the time, when no changes to the default providers’ weights have been introduced. These percentages are the utilization thresholds of each provider. threshold is a goal amount of use, not an actual amount of use. A utilization threshold may represent a desired maximum percentage (i.e., proportion), of proxy requests to be referred to a particular proxy provider. Based on the Specification’s use of a “utilization threshold,” we construe the term to mean “a maximum percentage of use assigned to a particular proxy provider that is equal to a weight for the particular proxy provider divided by the sum of respective weights assigned to all proxy providers during the same time period.”” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,601,948 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2021 · IPR2021-00984 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted obviousness grounds taught or suggested the claimed responsive fragmentation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, and Reply, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one Challenged Claim of the ’669 patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’669 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and one to two years of experience in the design and development of network communication systems. Alternatively, a POSITA would have a master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and fewer years of design and development experience. Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–63). “Patent Owner takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” Prelim. Resp. 37. We regard Petitioner’s proposed definition as reasonable, and consistent with the prior art before us. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 3 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Accordingly, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which also is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Yang. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–63.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim terms for construction. Pet. 6 (“Petitioner construes each term as having its ordinary and customary meaning.”); Prelim. Resp. 11 (“Patent Owner does not propose any claim term departs from its ordinary and customary meaning.”). We do not find that the express construction of any term is necessary for this decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“While not showing a teaching away, the above statement in Sourani contrasting stop points and fragmentation does show that one of ordinary skill in the art reading Sourani would know that the stop points in Sourani are not intended to be fragments. Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why, despite this contrast, one of ordinary skill would use fragmentation with the system of Sourani.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,876,669 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00814 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–15, 18–24, 26, 27, and 30–32 because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of success.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, and supplemental briefing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of challenged claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–15, 18–24, 26, 27, and 30–32 of the ’928 patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we deny institution of an inter partes review of the ’928 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and one to two years of experience in the design and development of network communication systems. Alternatively, a POSITA would have a Master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and less years of design and development experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–71). Patent Owner does not present an alternative definition at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 30. We regard Petitioner’s proposed definition as reasonable, and” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner does not propose any claim terms for construction. Pet. 7 (“For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner construes each of the ’928 claim terms as having its ordinary and custom[ary] meaning.”). Although, Petitioner does submit that, “[f]or purposes of this IPR only, Petitioner relies on the claim scope positions Patent Owner has advanced in district court for ‘port definer module.’” Pet. 8. Similarly, Patent Owner argues each claim term should have its ordinary and customary meaning, except that, as in the parallel district court proceeding, the function of alleged means-plus-function term “port definer module” should be construed to be “designating any one physical link of the logical link and examining the designated link of the logical link.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We note that, in the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not appear to identify any structure in the Specification for performing that function. See generally Prelim. Resp. Regardless, we do not find that the express construction of any term is necessary for this decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not explained sufficiently, let alone with particularity, why the skilled artisan, but for hindsight, would have (1) taken Y.1731, which says nothing concerning aggregated physical links with a single logical link to which packets are directed; (2) then turned to the architectural basis for Y.1731, namely “Ethernet specification G.8010/Y.1306”; (3) then turned to standards “IEEE 802.1D, 802.1Q, and 802.3,” which are “account[ed] for” by G.8010/Y.1306, and specifically selected to pursue 802.3 from among those; (4) then, without any reference or indication in Y.1731 itself, turned specifically to standard IEEE 802.3ad within the set of 802.3 standards, and specifically to its disclosure of aggregated physical links with a single logical link; and then (5) upon making all of these connections, understood Y.1731 itself to disclose or teach aggregated physical links with a single logical link, particularly in the context of the Challenged Claims as a whole. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It appears that [the expert] relied on the [] patent itself as her roadmap for putting what she referred to as pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ together.”); Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (“To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.”). Although “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 421), the Federal Circuit has observed that “‘the prejudice of hindsight bias’ often overlooks that the ‘genius of invention is often a combination of known elements which in hindsight seems preordained.’” Polaris Industries, Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,768,928 - Autostore System Inc. v. Ocado Innovation LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00798 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“storage locations, but that this grid is defined by a structural framework. Ex. 1001, 14:5–6. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the language of claims 1 and 23 strongly suggests that the structural framework defines the grid of storage locations, and not merely that the structural framework provides open areas within which storage containers could be arranged in a grid-like pattern.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed in Section II.A.2 above, we construe “a structural framework defining a grid of storage locations,” as recited in claims 1 and 23, to require that a “structural framework” define the grid of storage locations, as opposed to these locations being defined merely by the orientation or location of stacked containers. Petitioner identifies no Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1 and 23 are anticipated by Lert.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“would have been obvious over Lert. Pet. 21–53. Petitioner’s obviousness arguments with respect to these claims do not resolve the issues noted above with respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 23. In particular, Petitioner provides no persuasive argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Lert to have a structural framework that defines the storage locations or to have delivery containers stored within storage containers and delivered to picking workstations. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8, 13–20, and 23 would have been obvious over the disclosures of Lert.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,796,080 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 30, 2021 · IPR2021-00571 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1–6 and 10–15 because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of success on the required control traffic label limitation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Notably, although Petitioner understands that the Examiner allowed the Challenged Claims based on this “indicating” limitation (Pet. 33), Petitioner fails to direct us with particularity to any disclosure or teaching in Fine of a “control traffic label” itself “indicating” to LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to the user equipment. See Pet. 33–35. As argued by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 47– 48), Petitioner does not explain with particularity how or why Fine’s VLAN Tag field 304 or Destination Address field 306 (or both) indicates to LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to user equipment (or teaches such “indicating”). Instead, Petitioner merely leaps from arguing that Fine teaches that tagged BPDUs do not reach user equipment (Pet. 34), to averring that this constitutes or teaches the claimed “indicating” limitation, without providing particular support and explanation for such a leap. See Pet. 33–35; 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (The petition must identify supporting evidence “with particularity.” (emphasis added)); 37 C.F.R § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art . . . .” (emphasis added)). For the foregoing reasons, and constrained by the Petition, we are not persuaded that the cited evidence adequately supports Petitioner’s contention that Fine discloses “the control traffic label indicating to the LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to the user equipment,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 10.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Notably, although Petitioner understands that the Examiner allowed the Challenged Claims based on this “indicating” limitation (Pet. 33), Petitioner fails to direct us with particularity to any disclosure or teaching in Fine of a “control traffic label” itself “indicating” to LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to the user equipment. See Pet. 33–35. As argued by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 47– 48), Petitioner does not explain with particularity how or why Fine’s VLAN Tag field 304 or Destination Address field 306 (or both) indicates to LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to user equipment (or teaches such “indicating”). Instead, Petitioner merely leaps from arguing that Fine teaches that tagged BPDUs do not reach user equipment (Pet. 34), to averring that this constitutes or teaches the claimed “indicating” limitation, without providing particular support and explanation for such a leap. See Pet. 33–35; 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (The petition must identify supporting evidence “with particularity.” (emphasis added)); 37 C.F.R § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art . . . .” (emphasis added)). For the foregoing reasons, and constrained by the Petition, we are not persuaded that the cited evidence adequately supports Petitioner’s contention that Fine discloses “the control traffic label indicating to the LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to the user equipment,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 10.” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,127,523 - Facebook, Inc. v. Thaddeus GabaraInstitution deniedPTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00201 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable; the cited combinations did not teach or suggest a stationary map.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’698 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“through 14, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently7 that the map shown Figure 13b is stationary, as recited in claim 1. Petitioner does not rely upon Roussos as teaching the “stationary map” recited in claim 1 or assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kim in light of Roussos to satisfy this claim limitation. See, e.g., Pet. 27–30 (relying upon Kim); see also id. at 26 (discussing the proposed combination as including Roussos’s coordinate system). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Kim and Roussos teaches or suggests a stationary map as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). At this stage of the proceeding, the parties agree that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 28. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,836,698 - Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2020-00170 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–14 and 17–20 because the petition did not adequately explain combining Hull and Barber.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“disclosure or that the Decision’s analysis of Hull is unsupported by substantial evidence. Petitioner does not point to any disclosure in Hull of descriptors that are not invariant to distortions such as those caused by translation, rotation, and scaling. See Req. Reh’g 2–8. Although Petitioner cites references in Hull to “other” or “alternative” embodiments, Petitioner does not identify, nor do we see, any descriptors other than distortion- invariant descriptors in those embodiments. See id. at 3–8. Nor does Petitioner cite any disclosure in Hull explicitly stating that distortion-invariant descriptors are “optional” or “exemplary,” as Petitioner contends. See id. at 1, 6, 8.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“adequate showing in its obviousness analysis that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hull1 and Barber2 in the manner proposed to achieve the claimed invention, which relates to a system and method for matching a target image to images stored in a database.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“adequate showing in its obviousness analysis that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hull1 and Barber2 in the manner proposed to achieve the claimed invention, which relates to a system and method for matching a target image to images stored in a database.” slip op. at 2
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,253,201 - Facebook, Inc. v. Thaddeus GabaraInstitution deniedPTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00200 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied on all challenged claims because the petition did not show that Kim, alone or in combination, disclosed or suggested the required stationary map.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the following reasons, we find Patent Owner’s assertions have merit because Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing Kim discloses or suggests a background image of a stationary map, which is a necessary limitation in each of the challenged independent claims. Because this deficiency is dispositive and leads us to the conclusion that the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’545 patent, our discussion below focuses on Petitioner’s contentions regarding Kim’s disclosure of a stationary map.” slip op. at 12
- Other 314aNot reached
“V. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner contends that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Prelim. Resp. 3–12. Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s argument. See Paper 12 (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request to File Preliminary Replies to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses), 3 (noting that Petitioner requested authorization to file a preliminary reply to respond to Patent Owner’s argument regarding discretionary denial under § 314(a)). Because we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at least one claim of the ’545 patent is unpatentable, we need not reach the issue of discretionary denial pursuant to § 314(a).” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’545 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNot reached
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). At this stage of the proceeding, the parties agree that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 28. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,620,545 - Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01613 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3 and 5–15 unpatentable over Milewski, or claims 1–3, 7–9, and 12 obvious over Milewski and Heijden.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached
“The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Petitioner contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 3–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Andrews’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience in the fields of messaging systems, and wireless communication devices, or an equivalent advanced education in the field of messaging systems, including wireless communication devices. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,925,308
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.