• Dell Technologies Inc. / Dell Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2022 · IPR2022-00628 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Patent Owner established priority to JP665, antedating the references asserted against sole challenged claim 1.

  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) (2020). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “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). The dispositive issue here is whether Patent Owner shows that the effective filing date of the ’238 patent extends to the filing date of its foreign application, thereby antedating two of Petitioner’s asserted prior art references. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the sole challenged claim. Accordingly, we deny inter partes review of the ’238 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “In summary, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, an artisan of ordinary skill would not have read JP665’s disclosed video improvements to H.26L as limited only to a coded video system (i.e., without audio) in the face of known related audio/video coding standards specifically contemplating video coding standards including H.26L and its predecessor H.263. Moreover, the parties agree that an artisan of ordinary skill would have known of the existing audio and video encoding standards. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2001 ¶ 30; supra § IIIB. Therefore, Patent Owner shows that JP665 conveys possession of a component (video) used in a known system as defined by known standards (coded audio and video in multiplexing and demultiplexing systems) as required by claim 1’s preamble, element 1a, and element 1b. Based on the full record as generally summarized above, Patent Owner establishes priority of the ’238 patent to JP665, thereby antedating Bjontegaard and JVT-C167, which the Petition relies upon to allege obviousness in Grounds 1 and 2, respectively. This priority showing is fatal to the Petition’s obviousness showing.” slip op. at 22

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “In summary, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, an artisan of ordinary skill would not have read JP665’s disclosed video improvements to H.26L as limited only to a coded video system (i.e., without audio) in the face of known related audio/video coding standards specifically contemplating video coding standards including H.26L and its predecessor H.263. Moreover, the parties agree that an artisan of ordinary skill would have known of the existing audio and video encoding standards. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2001 ¶ 30; supra § IIIB. Therefore, Patent Owner shows that JP665 conveys possession of a component (video) used in a known system as defined by known standards (coded audio and video in multiplexing and demultiplexing systems) as required by claim 1’s preamble, element 1a, and element 1b. Based on the full record as generally summarized above, Patent Owner establishes priority of the ’238 patent to JP665, thereby antedating Bjontegaard and JVT-C167, which the Petition relies upon to allege obviousness in Grounds 1 and 2, respectively. This priority showing is fatal to the Petition’s obviousness showing.” slip op. at 22

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,769,238
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2022 · IPR2022-00355 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–16 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 meritsInstitution denied

    “For these reasons, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim 1 as obvious over Buchner or obvious over Buchner and Launey.” slip op. at 32

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

    “v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”); 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner contends that we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition because Petitioner’s invalidity grounds will be resolved in a district court case3 before our deadline for a final written decision. Prelim. Resp. 15–17 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential)). However, because we find that Petitioner is not likely to prevail on the merits, and deny on that basis, we do not need to address whether we should exercise our discretion to deny based on the district court case.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. First, the ordinary meaning of “internet address” in the context of the claims is an address that conforms to IP. Claim 1, for example, recites “providing a computer operatively connected to the internet.” This is a reference to the Internet, the global network conforming to TCP/IP. Later references to “internet address” should be read in this context. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (The Federal Circuit’s “cases provide numerous similar examples in which the use of a term within the claim provides a firm basis for construing the term.”). The Specification confirms that the Internet is a specific network and not just any network: “[T]he present invention allows users to control and monitor other systems and devices that are connected [to] the Internet or any other network by using voice commands.” Ex. 1001, 1:25–28; see also id. at 1:32–43, 1:53–56 (“Furthermore, the use of laptop or desktop computers to access the Internet requires either a direct or a dial-up connection t[o] an Internet Service Provider (ISP).”). The Specification gives a specific example of a uniform resource locator (URL) as a device identifier. Id. at 17:52–54 (“Each record will contain at least a device identifier, which may be in the form of a URL.”). It also states that “data is transmitted using the uses “internet” to distinguish the Internet from other networks. It follows that an “internet address” is an address on the Internet (or at least conforming to IP), and not an address on any arbitrary network. As Phillips counsels, “the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” 415 F.3d at 1313.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has not introduced persuasive evidence that a TCP/IP based bus would have been an obvious replacement for Buchner’s IEEE 1394 bus. Petitioner makes this argument in conclusory fashion, and Mr. Lipoff largely repeats this argument in his testimony, without meaningful additional testimony and without identifying the basis for that testimony. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–117. If Mr. Lipoff contends that the 1997 IEEE article shows that an IEEE 1394 bus can be swapped for a TCP/IP bus, he has not explained that adequately or shown where the article supports such an argument. Thus, Petitioner’s contention is largely conclusory attorney argument driven by hindsight. Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that Buchner teaches “said instruction set comprising: at least one internet address, said at least” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,386,455
• Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00442 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Google did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We thus determine that Petitioner does not adequately demonstrate that the second wherein clause of the update limitation is met by Myr as Petitioner contends. We accordingly conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claims 1 and 11 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Myr and Yiu, nor on its challenge of claim 22 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Myr, Yiu, and Machida. Because Petitioner’s challenges of the various challenged dependent claims suffer from the same defect by virtue of those claims’ dependence from one of the challenged independent claims, we also conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges of claims 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 17–19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Myr and Yiu, nor its challenges of claims 2, 6, 13, and 16 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Myr, Yiu, and Machida.” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent training, in addition to approximately 2 years of experience working on telecommunications navigation and geolocation systems.” Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30–34). Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Master of Science (‘MS’) Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Cartography, or equivalent work experience in the field of computer networks, along with knowledge of the general structure of networked communication systems, its hardware and software components and underlying communications technologies.” Prelim. Resp. 6. Patent Owner further proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would be familiar with the latest communications standards.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001, 7). Neither Patent Owner nor Mr. Van Essen explains why the higher educational level is necessary, and, on the current record, we do not discern a basis for reaching a different conclusion under either proposed articulation of the level of ordinary skill. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Michalson, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. 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

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Both parties note that, for a related patent, the Eastern District of Texas previously construed the term “preference flags,” recited in challenged independent claims 1, 11 and 22 of the ’147 patent, as “two or more flags to control access to tracking of the user.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1008, 54–55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–36); Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 1008, 54–55). Both parties state that they apply this construction in their briefs. Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 5. In light of the parties’ apparent agreement, and because the district court’s construction appears reasonable, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “The specification of the ’147 patent does not use the term “navigation information” outside of its title and claims, and we discern insufficient reason to include “composed as a number of segments” as part of its construction because the claims explicitly further limit “navigation information” by reciting such segmentation. See Ex. 1001, 128:17–19 (claim 1 reciting “wherein the first processor further sends the user navigation information to the network as a number of segments”), 130:21– 23 (claim 11 reciting “sending the user navigation information to the at least one other processor outside the network as a number of segments”), 132:54– 57 (claim 22 reciting “wherein the first processor further sends the user navigation information to the at least one other processor outside of the network as a number of segments”). Nevertheless, consistent with the dictionary definitions Patent Owner provides, we agree that the “term ‘navigation information’ includes at least ‘a course or way (route) from one place to another.’” Prelim. Resp. 5. In adopting such a construction for purposes of this Decision, we additionally note that each of independent claims 1, 11, and 22 further recites “traffic congestion information” as a distinct term. See Ex. 1001, 128:21–22, 130:26–27, 132:51. We accordingly treat “navigation information” and “traffic congestion information” as distinct in meaning. See CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”).” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,820,147
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00279 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4 were unpatentable over the asserted § 103 combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that at least one of claims 1–4 of the ’705 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review.4 IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not found

    “But as Patent Owner points out, Petitioner’s argument “makes no consideration for the use of the Kovatch tree by multiple users,” and “[a]ttempting to incorporate user preferences would result in a complex, unwieldy system as the number of users increases, running counter to Kovatch’s goal of a ‘scaleable, remotely manageable’ architecture.” Prelim. Resp. 36 (quoting Ex. 1004, 14:14–16). Based on our review of Kovatch, we agree with Patent Owner’s characterization that “the Kovatch system is not designed using [Petitioner’s] alleged hierarchical tree ranked with users’ preferences.” See id. at 37. That is, as Patent Owner asserts, “[t]he Kovatch tree is designed to be a navigational tool that allows the system to produce a list of valid destinations by prompting the users” with context-sensitive voice prompts, using Anita Prompt Generator 6, as discussed above in our summary of Kovatch. Id. at 36. Distinctly, Kovatch describes user preferences as stored in user profiles, without any explicit integration with the destination tree structure. See Ex. 1004, 16:7–8 (“During each user session, Anita Query Engine transfers relevant information to Anita Profiler. Anita Profiler captures and filters this information to build a repository of user preferences, navigational history and usage patterns.”); Prelim. Resp. 37 (Patent Owner asserting that “Kovatch makes clear that user preferences are stored outside of the Kovatch tree in user profiles”). The integration that Petitioner relies on in asserting that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that Kovatch includes a hierarchical order based on users’ preferences” appears instead to be derived from a hindsight modification of what Kovatch actually teaches. See Pet. 21; Sensonics Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“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.”).” slip op. at 24

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

    “Based on this sparse disclosure, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that, logically, in order for Wise’s documents to be stored in hierarchical order, each document must be assigned a number, indicating where in the ordered list it should be saved.” Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 192). At best, this assertion is grounded in hindsight. Contrary to Petitioner’s implication, Wise does not teach that source documents found by a search engine are “stored in hierarchical order”; rather, Wise states that the documents that make up the index are stored “in hierarchical order.” Ex. 1007, 10:7–9. And, as Patent Owner points out, “Wise does not even discuss an ‘ordered list’ or even any sense of numbering within the index.” Prelim. Resp. 46. Petitioner’s conclusory assertion does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand documents that form an index stored in hierarchical order to teach storing the source documents in an ordered list. Mr. Lipoff’s testimony is no more edifying and simply repeats the same conclusion without providing a sufficient explanation. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 192. Indeed, Wise’s explanation that a user may use “navigation commands to traverse the index and invoke a link to the source document” suggests that the source documents are not “stored in hierarchical order,” contrary to what Petitioner and Mr. Lipoff assert. Ex. 1007, 10:9–10 (emphasis added); Pet. 42. Petitioner alternatively relies on the combination of Burrows with Wise to meet the limitations, contending that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to include Burrows’s rank numbering in Wise’s hierarchical order.” Pet. 42. This contention largely suffers from the same deficiency as the corresponding contention made in the context of Petitioner’s Kovatch-Burrows challenge. That is, because Burrows’s ranking operation is performed on results after execution of a query, “[r]anking cannot be applied to an index (either Wise’s hierarchical document index or Burrows’s index) because an index merely documents the content of records (web sites).” Prelim. Resp. 47. As Patent Owner explains, the index “cannot hold rank information because alone, it has no sense of a future query that might be executed.” Id. We accordingly determine that the Petition identifies insufficient rational underpinning to support its contention that it would have been obvious over Wise and Burrows to assign a rank number to each of the recited web sites, as required by independent claims 1 and 2. And, as for the Kovatch-Burrows challenge, this deficiency impacts the polling limitations that require changes in rank number. See Ex. 1001, 20:4–17, 20:36–47; Pet. 50–52; Prelim. Resp. 52–54. We thus conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wise and Burrows.” slip op. at 28

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,721,705
• Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 26, 2022 · IPR2022-00297 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 53, 54, 56, 57, and 59 obvious over Furlong or Diacakis.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims. We hereby decline to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Each of these claims does not reintroduce the term “message” in the body of the claim but instead relies on the instance of “message” introduced in the preamble for antecedent basis. Notably, the first reference to “message” in the body of claim 1 (Element 1.1) appears in a limitation (“receiving, by the server, the message from the person using the first device”), describing a positive step in the claimed “method.” Similarly, the first reference to “message” in the body of claim 53 (Element 53.3) appears in a limitation (“wherein the at least one computing device [of the server] is configured to receive the message from the person using the first device”), describing a structural feature (“computing device”) of the claimed “server.” As Patent Owner notes, the “message” recited in each of Elements 1.1 and 53.3 refers back to the phrase “a person, using a first device, trying to 8 electronically convey a message from the first device to a second device” recited in the preambles. Prelim. Resp. 1−2, 10. Because claims 1 and 53 require the server (or the computing device in the server) to “receive the message from the person using the first device,” the phrase “a person, using a first device, trying to electronically convey a message from the first device to a second device of the user” in the preambles of these claims is essential to understanding the limitations in these claims, not merely reciting an intended purpose of the claimed invention. This “indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention.” Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808; Bell Commc’ns Research, 55 F.3d at 620; Shoes by Firebug, 962 F.3d at 1368. Therefore, the phrase “a person, using a first device, trying to electronically convey a message from the first device to a second device of the user” in each of the preambles of claims 1 and 53 is limiting.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Notably, neither the authenticated session with PLAS 15, nor the request from the third-party application (steps 500 and 502), is the “message” the person is trying to convey to the device of the user, as required by Element 53.3. Significantly, Furlong discloses that, after PLAS 15 notifies the third-party application of the subscriber’s availability (step 512), “the application sends the message to the subscriber (step 514)” directly, not via the server, PLAS 15. Ex. 1007 ¶ 94 (emphasis added), Fig. 5. Thus, PLAS 15 in Furlong does not receive the message the third-party application (person) is trying to convey to the device of the subscriber (user).” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Here, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’407 patent would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or equivalent field and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67−72). At this juncture, Patent Owner does not proffer any assessment regarding the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. 2 At this time, the parties do not address objective indicia of nonobviousness, which accordingly do not form part of our analysis. See Pet. 75 (“Petitioner is unaware of any evidence of secondary considerations that would support a finding of non-obviousness.”). 10 For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill as articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, this proposal appears to be consistent with the ’407 patent, prior art of record, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Kevin Almeroth.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,744,407
• Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00195 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  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) (2021). 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). Moreover, a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art in light of the subject matter of the ’244 patent, which is not limited to “aeronautical” or “aerospace” applications, claims a “stowage bin assembly” and a “hinge assembly,” and expressly refers broadly to “transportation vehicles” as typically including “overhead storage compartments,” identifying “airplanes” only as an “example” of a “transportation vehicle.” Ex. 1001, code (57), 1:12–15, 7:31–8:64. Patent Owner’s argument appears to be no more than a transparent attempt to baselessly suggest that Dr. Codd should be excluded from testifying because he lacks “the proper background or sufficient experience in the field” under Patent Owner’s unreasonable proposed level of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Dr. Dershowitz’s testimony in support of Patent Owner on the level of ordinary skill is not credible because it is inconsistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted art. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–63. For example, Dr. Dershowitz acknowledges that “[h]inges are common to many mechanical systems,” but then suggests “being familiar with hinges in general may not directly apply to the specifics of this invention” without identifying anything “specific” to the ’244 patent that requires the level of skill Dr. Dershowitz endorses. Id. ¶ 62. Dr. Dershowitz suggests “hinges used in storage solutions that are stationary have fewer requirements related to mass and volume and are not subject to the same forces and stresses that are experienced on an aircraft,” however, the challenged claims of the ’244 patent do not preclude “stationary” storage solutions, do not require anything pertaining to “mass and volume,” and are not required to withstand any “forces and stresses” experienced on an aircraft. Dr. Dershowitz’s opinion that “[d]ue to the unique environment and specialized nature of the technology at issue” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed “to have an educational background and experience that is specific to the aerospace field” is not supported by the ’244 patent or the asserted art. See id. ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 2 (Rheaume stating it “relates to a hinge assembly and, more particularly to a hinge assembly for retaining a door of a storage bin”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 2 (Savian stating it “relates generally to overhead storage bin assemblies”); Ex. 1008, 3:24–27 (Frazier stating it discloses “improvements to standard luggage and storage bins commonly found in commercial aircraft as well as other aircraft, buses, passenger vans, and other vehicles”). Dr. Dershowitz’s misapprehension of the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art is a consideration we apply in weighing his opinion of how a” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Dershowitz’s testimony in support of Patent Owner on the level of ordinary skill is not credible because it is inconsistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted art. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–63. For example, Dr. Dershowitz acknowledges that “[h]inges are common to many mechanical systems,” but then suggests “being familiar with hinges in general may not directly apply to the specifics of this invention” without identifying anything “specific” to the ’244 patent that requires the level of skill Dr. Dershowitz endorses. Id. ¶ 62. Dr. Dershowitz suggests “hinges used in storage solutions that are stationary have fewer requirements related to mass and volume and are not subject to the same forces and stresses that are experienced on an aircraft,” however, the challenged claims of the ’244 patent do not preclude “stationary” storage solutions, do not require anything pertaining to “mass and volume,” and are not required to withstand any “forces and stresses” experienced on an aircraft. Dr. Dershowitz’s opinion that “[d]ue to the unique environment and specialized nature of the technology at issue” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed “to have an educational background and experience that is specific to the aerospace field” is not supported by the ’244 patent or the asserted art. See id. ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 2 (Rheaume stating it “relates to a hinge assembly and, more particularly to a hinge assembly for retaining a door of a storage bin”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 2 (Savian stating it “relates generally to overhead storage bin assemblies”); Ex. 1008, 3:24–27 (Frazier stating it discloses “improvements to standard luggage and storage bins commonly found in commercial aircraft as well as other aircraft, buses, passenger vans, and other vehicles”). Dr. Dershowitz’s misapprehension of the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art is a consideration we apply in weighing his opinion of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the prior art at issue.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner contends that no claim terms require construction. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–66). Patent Owner proposes an express construction for “stowage bin door” and “self-opening mechanism.” Prelim. Resp. 13– 17. We find no claim term requires an express construction in reaching our decision for the reasons below to deny institution of inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,801,244
• Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00192 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2–6 or 12–17 were unpatentable; claims 1 and 7–11 had been disclaimed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21

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

    “More importantly, Petitioner provides no sufficient reasoning and cites no support for construing the required “self-opening mechanism” to be so broad as to include a mechanism that provides “only some damping against gravity to be ‘self-opening.’” Reply 2. We agree with Patent Owner that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, a component that only opposes opening is not a “self-opening mechanism.” See Sur-reply 2. In short, as shown by Patent Owner, the plain and ordinary meaning of “self-opening mechanism” in the context of the ’315 patent, as required by claims 2–6 and 12–17, is a mechanism that acts on its own accord to open the stowage bin door. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2006). An express construction of any other claim term is not necessary for” slip op. at 15

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

    “obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “9 Patent Owner also argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) to deny institution of inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 36–46. We deny institution of inter partes review for the reasons provided above and, therefore, do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,760,315
• Google LLC v. Defenders Of The American Dream, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 18, 2022 · IPR2022-00112 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–17 were obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Because Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Silva discloses “an image recognition task [that] comprises an instruction to select one image corresponding to the selected image category from the matrix of non-overlapping randomly selected images,” we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that claims 1–17 would have been obvious in view of Silva, either alone or in combination with Osborn or Osborn and Pinkas.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field with coursework relating to computer science, plus two years’ academic and/or industry experience in computer security and/or artificial intelligence” and that “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–39). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’578 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. C.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Claim Construction Petitioner asserts that it interprets the claims “using the standard used in civil actions under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a POSA and the patent’s prosecution history,” but does not identify any constructions. Pet. 6. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in the Preliminary Response. Under these circumstances, we find that we need not engage in formal claim construction, although we do address some claim language in the course of the obviousness analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). D.” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “Moreover, the prosecution history removes any doubt about whether these claims are limited to an instruction to select only one image. As explained above, the applicant changed “an instruction to select an image” to “an instruction to select one image” in response to a rejection in which the Examiner was relying on the Pratte reference for the instruction. See Ex. 1002, 404, 427. The applicant then argued that Pratte failed to teach the “image recognition task” because “Pratte does not instruct a user to select ‘one image,’ but instead ‘instructs a user to select all images that are associated with animals.’” Id. at 435. We conclude that the amendment and associated argument evidence a clear and unmistakable narrowing of the claims to systems with instructions to select one image corresponding to the category, and excluding systems, like Pratte, in which the user is instructed to select all images associated with a category. See Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 29 F.4th 1365, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (explaining that “for a statement during prosecution to qualify as a disavowal of claim scope, it must be ‘so clear as to show reasonable clarity and deliberateness’ and ‘so unmistakable as to be unambiguous evidence of disclaimer’”) (quoting Omega Engr., Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)); see, e.g., SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 998 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (limiting claims where “the applicants argued that [the prior art] had a ‘hierarchical’ relationship between fields and values that fell outside the scope of the amended claims”). The disclaimer arises even though the applicant made other arguments in the same response. See SpeedTrack, 998 F.3d at 1380. Silva, like Pratte, instructs the user to select all images that fall into a category––see Ex. 1005, 1325 (“The user is then asked to identify, from each column available in the test, which image relates to the label.”)––and thus does not meet the claim language requiring an instruction to select “one” image. Notably, this problem cannot be cured by mapping the claimed “matrix” to a single column of Silva, because the claims also require that the “matrix” comprise at least one of each of the three categories of images, and Silva has three columns that are a mix of images known to be in the category and known to not be in the category, and a fourth column that consists of entirely unknown images. See Ex. 1005, 1325 (“One special column will contain all those images whose relation to the current label we want to verify, while all the others contain the remaining images whose relation to the label the system is confident about, i.e. they certainly do or do not relate to the label.”).” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,621,578
• Termax Company v. Illinois Tool Works Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 12, 2022 · IPR2022-00106 · APJ Rae Lynn P Guest · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on the sole design claim because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation by Scroggie or obviousness over Scroggie, Scroggie and Benedetti, or Benedetti and Scroggie.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Scroggie is based entirely on the premise that we cannot consider the appearance of the lower platform. See Pet. 32 (“Factoring out unclaimed features and the functional aspects of the lower platform, a side-by-side comparison of the remaining aspects of the claimed design . . . illustrates the D’826 design is identical in all material respects to Scroggie and is anticipated . . . .”). Indeed, on the record before us, Petitioner does not address the design as a whole, to the extent that it includes the appearance of the lower platform, in order to show that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would deem the design depicted in Scroggie to have the same overall visual appearance as that claimed in the ’826 patent. Rather, Petitioner asserts that “there are no differences between Scroggie and the claimed design.” Pet. 41. Indeed, on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that the lower platform is significant to the overall appearance of the fastener design, and thus Petitioner’s analysis is not sufficient on this record. Because we disagree with Petitioner’s premise that the lower platform’s appearance is primarily dictated by function, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to this ground.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “platform is not visible “at all times during the fastener’s normal use,” but is “hidden from view.” Pet. 24. Again, the use of the fastener is not limited to use with a seal for a vehicle. Petitioner provides no evidence of manufacturing techniques, sales, advertising, or installation, to support the contention that “[f]rom manufacture, sale and installation, the lower platform is enshrouded by the perimeter seal.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 65). And, although Petitioner relies on Mr. Wheelock’s testimony, that testimony is unsupported on the record before us. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 65 (failing to identify any support for his opinion). Accordingly, we give Mr. Wheelock’s testimony on this point little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Additionally, as noted above, we are not persuaded that a seal is a necessary component for a general fastener, and, thus, we are not persuaded that fasteners are not manufactured or sold without seals attached. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that such a position is not supported by case law.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a person having at least a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and at least three years of experience in push-in fastener engineering, and specifically sealing fasteners, as used in the assembly of vehicle trims.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 37). Patent Owner argues that the Petitioner’s definition leaves out a key detail “that the person actually has to be a ‘designer’” and “incorrectly alleges that the person at issue need only be someone with ‘experience’ with push-in fastener ‘engineering,’ without any experience whatsoever in designing them.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. However, Patent Owner also asserts that an ordinary designer is “[a] person having an engineering degree and at least three years of experience in designing fasteners with designs similar to the ‘D826 patent, or comparable qualifications acquired through work experience.” Id. at 12 (bold emphasis added). Because Patent Owner’s definition includes qualifications acquired through “work experience” broadly, we think the parties’ definitions are quite close. In particular, neither definition strictly requires three years of design experience in fasteners; rather, each includes comparable qualifications through other work experiences in fastener technology. Accordingly, the result is not impacted based on whether we rely on Petitioner’s definition or Patent Owner’s definition of the skilled artisan. Further, based on the limited record before us, we note that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art designs of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “In construing the design claim, if the particular appearance of a design aspect is dictated by its function, the functional element’s appearance cannot significantly contribute to an ornamental design because it would necessarily have the same appearance in any other device where it serves the same function. Sport Dimension, 820 F.3d at 1321 (“[T]he fact finder should not focus on the particular designs of these elements when determining infringement, but rather focus on what these elements contribute to the design’s overall ornamentation.”). Accordingly, if a feature is shown in the prior art as a whole having a variety of appearances and yet serves the same function, the appearance is likely not critical to its function, or that feature would have looked identical in each device’s design. See Best Lock, 94 F.3d at 1566 (“A design is not dictated solely by its function when alternative designs for the article of manufacture are available.”); L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123 (“When there are several ways to achieve the function of an article of manufacture, the design of the article is more likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose.”). Thus, to determine what visual aspects of a design are primarily functional, any analysis must consider how that feature appears throughout the prior art and whether and what aspects of that feature appear consistently.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
• Microsoft Corp. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00137 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 or 2 were obvious over either asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We accordingly determine that Petitioner fails adequately to support its contention that the combination of Perrone, Kumar, and Madnick meet claim 1’s requirement for “a rank number assigned to each one of said web sites and stored in said database.” See Ex. 1001, 19:56–57. We therefore conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Perrone, Kumar, and Madnick.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner seeks to fill the resulting gap by contending that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood Kumar’s ranking teachings would have been appropriately applied to distinct web sites when the web sites each represent a satisfactory source for desired information.” Id. at 24. Petitioner advances this contention notwithstanding the fact that Perrone fails to disclose a database containing a list with multiple web sites, and notwithstanding the fact that Kumar fails to disclose distinct web sites. Petitioner’s gap-filling contention thus seeks to compensate for what is absent from the references themselves. But “[t]o 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.” 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)). “The invention must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made.” Id. (citing Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Petitioner’s additional citation of Anycasting fares no better. Notably, Petitioner does not rely directly on Anycasting as part of its patentability challenge. Instead, Petitioner cites Anycasting to support its gap-filling argument, specifically for the proposition that “distinct web sites may be considered equivalent sources of particular information (‘replicated servers’) for desired information, such as news.” Pet. 24. In doing so, Petitioner relies on Anycasting’s statement that “whereas the many web news sites (e.g., CNN Interactive, Time Magazine and USA Today) carry different information, they, nevertheless, can be construed as being replicated servers for some applications.” Ex. 1008, 1390 (emphasis added).3 Petitioner does not specifically address the limited applications for which this statement might apply. Regardless, Anycasting’s statement falls far short of supporting a general equivalence of replicated servers and distinct web sites 3 Petitioner’s citation to page 1392 appears to be a typographical error. that would thereby render inconsequential Kumar’s silence on distinct web sites. See Prelim. Resp. 31 (“Anycasting fails to remedy Kumar’s failure to disclose the ranking of multiple, distinct web sites.”).” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in interactive voice response systems, automated information retrieval systems, or related technologies, such as web-based information retrieval systems.” Pet. 4. Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional education may substitute for lesser work experience and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Terveen supports this articulation, and Patent Owner does not propose any different articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–28. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Terveen, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. 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 9

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

    “used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “Petitioner does not believe any claim language requires express construction” to resolve its challenges, nor does Patent Owner propose any express construction of any claim term. See Pet. 6. On the record before us, we do not find it necessary to construe any term for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,721,705

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.