• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01500 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  Institution of IPR challenging claims 1–5 was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may 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). For the reasons that follow, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or an equivalent field, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures and protocols, and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). Petitioner further proposes that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). 6 Elgamal, U.S. Patent No. 6,898,248 B1, issued May 24, 2005 (Ex. 1008, “Elgamal”). 7 Frank et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0035469 A1, published Feb. 20, 2003 (Ex. 1006, “Frank”). 8 Zha et al., “Soft-Decision Successive Interference Cancellation CDMA Receiver with Amplitude Averaging and Robust to Timing Errors,” Proc. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2001 (GLOBECOM ’01), vol. 2, 2001, pp. 743–747 (Ex. 1010, “Zha”). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’703 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).” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “provide sufficiently persuasive evidence in support of its position that claim 1’s “decoders” has a meaning broad enough to correspond to Zha’s decision rule. Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s understanding of claim 1’s “decoders” by arguing that “[Patent Owner] does not argue that the specification disclaims decoders that do not perform error correction, or otherwise expressly limits the claimed bank of decoders to error correction.” Prelim. Reply 6. In support of its position, Petitioner cites Dr. Min’s testimony that “[i]n my opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that the ‘decision rule’ would be implemented using a decoder, as decoders typically make bit decisions.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 178; Pet. 59. Dr. Min does not cite any objective evidence in support of this view. Ex. 1003 ¶ 178. In response, Patent Owner marshals intrinsic evidence, along with Dr. Caire’s testimony based on objective supporting evidence. Prelim. Resp. 47–48; Prelim. Sur-Reply 5–6. For example, arguing that all embodiments disclosed in the ’703 patent use error-correcting coding, Patent Owner emphasizes the ’703 patent’s statement that “the [’703 patent’s] specification states that ‘[t]he invention is based on an iterative decoding solution that exploits error correction codes.’” Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (quoting Ex. 1001, 25:27–29 (emphasis added by Patent Owner)). Patent Owner also cites the Abstract of the ’703 patent, which states that “[t]he present invention provides Turbo-decoding for joint signal demodulation based on an iterative decoding solution that exploits error correction codes.” Ex. 1001, code (57); Prelim. Sur-Reply 6. Patent Owner also cites Dr. Caire’s testimony that “any reasonable understanding of a decoder is one that implements an error correction coding approach.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 98; Prelim. Resp. 47. Dr. Caire cite objective evidence that supports this view. Ex. 2001 ¶ 98 (citing Ex. 2003, 3; Ex. 2004, 11; Ex. 2005, 228). Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Patent Owner’s more persuasive than Petitioner’s. Starting with the intrinsic evidence, Patent Owner’s citation of the ’703 patent’s repeated statements that the “invention . . . exploits error correction codes” is more persuasive than Petitioner’s argument that the ’703 patent does not disclaim other approaches. Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 25:27–29, code (57)); Prelim. Reply 6. Petitioner argues that certain background documents suggest decoders may have a broad meaning, but this attorney argument warrants less weight than Dr. Caire’s testimony. Prelim. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 2003, 18–20; Ex. 2004, 7, 9). Accordingly, in sum, Petitioner does not” slip op. at 16

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

    “In view of all the parties’ arguments and evidence, we do not find a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing on this issue. When questioning who exactly had rights to which specific inventions of Mr. McElwain’s, Petitioner glosses over the key, undisputed fact that Mr. McElwain assigned the invention of the ’703 patent to the exact same entity to which Brommer was assigned, specifically BAESI. Ex. 2012, 2; Ex. 2011, 2. Mr. McElwain did so shortly after BAE filed Mr. McElwain’s provisional application on April 14, 2003, which both parties treat as the ’703 patent’s date of invention. Ex. 2012, 2; Ex. 2013, 1; Prelim. Resp. 32; Prelim. Reply 1. This, in combination with Patent Owner’s evidence regarding Mr. McElwain’s EPIIA and BAE’s acquisition of Lockheed Martin’s Aerospace Electronics System Business, evinces that Mr. McElwain had an obligation on April 14, 2003, to assign the invention of the ’703 patent to BAESI. Exs. 2014–2016. As Patent Owner notes, Petitioner does not advance a reason that Mr. McElwain would not have been obligated on April 14, 2003, to assign the invention of the ’703 patent to BAESI, much less provide evidence that he was not so obligated. See generally Prelim. Reply; Prelim. Sur-Reply 2. In sum, weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we do not find that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its position that Brommer is prior art to the ’703 patent for purposes of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its assertions that the claims of the ’703 patent would have been obvious over Brommer in combination with other references.” slip op. at 20

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,463,703
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01250 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–5, 7, 9–16, or 20 unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Min’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’s [degree] in [electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science], physics, or equivalent, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures, protocols and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 59). Dr. Min testifies that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. Additionally, Petitioner contends that Dr. Min “exceeded this level of experience by the priority date.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1010 (curriculum vitae of Dr. Min)). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’946 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).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Neither party contends that any claim terms require an express construction to resolve the present controversy. Pet. 8 (“For purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner does not believe any terms require a formal construction.”); see generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, Petitioner explains that the Petition is structured such that “Ground 1 is based on Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the district court litigation, where the claimed ‘MUD module’ is generally mapped to multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) receivers in a wireless network.” Pet. 2. Petitioner contends that “[u]nder this broad interpretation of a ‘MUD module,’ Walton’s MIMO receiver renders every challenged claim obvious.” Id. In contrast to Ground 1, the Petition states that “Ground 2 is based on the plain meaning of ‘MUD module,’ which is a component that detects, separates, and decodes signals from multiple users transmitting simultaneously over the same frequency band.” Id. Petitioner contends that, “[a]pplying the correct meaning of the term, Walton’s MIMO receiver does not necessarily comprise a MUD module.” Id. Therefore, Petitioner explains that “Ground 2 combines Walton with Learned, which expressly discloses [a] multi-user detector, and thus renders every challenged claim obvious in combination with Walton.” Id. at 2–3.7 In other words, the Petition presents Ground 1 and Grounds 2/3 as alternatives depending on the meaning of 7 Although not specifically relevant to claim construction, Petitioner explains that “Ground 3 further combines Walton and Learned with Quigley, to the extent Patent Owner argues Walton does not disclose providing a burst control input.” Pet. 3. “MUD module,” where Ground 1 is based on Petitioner’s understanding of Patent Owner’s interpretation of the term and Grounds 2 and 3 are based on Petitioner’s interpretation of the term as having its plain meaning. Petitioner further contends that “[e]very other claim term carries its ‘ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . .” Id. at 8. Although Petitioner presents a potential dispute regarding the meaning of “MUD module,” we need not construe this term expressly because the determination we reach herein does not depend on which meaning MUD module is applied. Accordingly, we do not construe any claim terms expressly because express constructions are not necessary to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 12

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

    “IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owners contends that the factors set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), weigh heavily in favor of discretionary denial. Prelim. Resp. 40–46; Paper 10. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 74–77; Paper 9. In light of the conclusion reached above, we need not address the parties’ arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,089,946
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01248 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11, 16, and 21 unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.

  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, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’071 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).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Neither party proposes a specific construction of any claim term, although Petitioner contends each term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 16; see generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because the meaning of the terms is not in dispute and an express construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We find the Petition lacking in particularity because it does not clearly identify what aspect of Jin is alleged to teach the unique signal parameters (or unique estimated signal parameters) recited in claim 1. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if — (3) the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim . . . .”). First, as reflected above, the Petition asserts that something called a “unique pilot parameter” teaches the recited unique estimated signal parameters. But “unique pilot parameter” is not a term or phrase recited in Jin. See Prelim. Resp. 19 (arguing the same). So, when Petitioner states “Jin discloses that the base station uses the unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique estimated signal parameters’) to ‘identify which user (i.e., mobile terminal) has transmitted the received data,’” it is not clear what element in Jin Petitioner intends to identify by the term “unique pilot parameter.” Dr. Min’s testimony does not help resolve the ambiguity in the Petition. In particular, Dr. Min also refers to a “unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique signal parameter’) for each user.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 89. But, as noted above, Jin does not disclose an element referred to as a “pilot parameter” and it is not clear what element Dr. Min intended to identify in Jin.8” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,814,071
• Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless / T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Aspen Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00008 · APJ Donald E Daybell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–28 were unpatentable over Tagg or Kottilingal and Politis.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “There is, however, a consistent thread that flows through the relevant disclosures of the specification; namely, that the “state involving the SIP sequence” is maintained throughout a dialog. Ex. 1001, 5:1–38 (step 210); see also id. (step 160). Using the method of Figure 4, including steps 160 and 210 and maintaining the SIP signaling state, is how the ’554 Patent discloses that calls are not broken or dropped. See, e.g., id. at 7:10–25. Maintaining the “state” of the SIP signaling sequence includes (but is not limited to) the teachings that a “SIP signaling sequence number” is maintained, as well as the details of how that number is maintained, as set forth in the specification. We find that the state of the SIP signaling sequence as that term is used in the specification refers to the rules (or paradigm) used to identify a collection of SIP signals as a “SIP signaling sequence,” and in particular the rules used to identify the next SIP packet received as belonging to a sequence of packets previously received. One key to the disclosed invention discussed in the specification is the concept that the invention prevents a call 3:45–4:9. The specification contends that the invention accomplishes this goal by configuring the packets involved in a VoIP call such that the receiving device (e.g., a SIP server) is able to recognize those packets as belonging to the same call, even though the packets are received over different paths. Id. at 7:35–50; 7:60–8:3. The particular way that the receiving devices are able to recognize that the packets are part of the same call is, per the claims, because the SIP signaling sequence is maintained after a network switch. Id. at 8:27–29. Thus, where a sequence of SIP signals uses numbers such as cseq values, there is a rule for identifying what the next signal in the sequence is. Ex. 1001, 5:1–38. A receiving device that knows the rule can identify an incoming packet as the next packet in the same signaling sequence as previously received packets, by applying the rule. Id. at 7:35–50. The specification provides one example rule, that the next SIP signal bears a monotonically-increasing cseq number. Id. at 5:1–38. But there could be other such rules as well. For example, the value could be monotonically decreased, or the value could be determined using some other formula.8 The claims also do not require that the sequence of SIP signals use “numbers” as sequence identifiers.9 Other labeling paradigms could be possible as well, 8 Patent Owner’s litigation claim construction improperly imports implementation details from the preferred embodiment, such as “cseq numbers” and the limitations that these numbers “monotonically increase” for new transmissions, or be “preserved” for re-transmissions. While such embodiments would be one way of maintaining a SIP signaling sequence, the specification does not clearly limit the invention to only these embodiments. 9 Petitioner’s litigation claim construction improperly imports the limitation from the preferred embodiment that the SIP signaling sequence must be” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “as of the time of the invention of the ’554 Patent “would have been familiar with designing rules for implementing policies for service plans for use of an access network and provisioning those rules to network elements for policy enforcement” and would have gained this knowledge through a mixture of training and work experience, such as by having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science and two years of experience; or by obtaining a Master’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, but having only one year of experience; or by having no formal education but experience in network service plan provisioning systems of at least four years. Pet. 10. 4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’554 Patent was filed before the effective date of the relevant amendment, the pre- AIA version of §103 applies. that a POSITA must specifically have “been familiar with designing rules for implementing policies for service plans for use of an access network and provisioning those rules to network elements for policy enforcement.” Prelim. Resp. 17–18. At this juncture, we adopt the agreed-upon portion of Petitioner’s definition, without the specific requirement relating to designing rules. This definition appears to be consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Our analysis would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “determine whether to institute review. Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence before us, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success in establishing that any claim of the ’554 Patent is unpatentable, and thus we decline to institute review. The Petition is denied, and inter partes review is not instituted.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s view of Tagg. At best, the cited portions of Tagg disclose that SIP is used by endpoint 1512 to communicate with SIP server 1500, and by the SIP server to communicate with SIP proxy 1504. Figure 15 discloses that SIP is used for both of the paths from endpoint 1520 to SIP server 1500, via the WWAN or the WLAN. Figure 15 further discloses that SIP is used for the path from SIP server 1500 to SIP proxy 1504. But Figure 15 and the accompanying text are silent about any “sequences” of SIP signals at all, much less whether any such “sequences” are maintained, as required by the language of limitation 1.6. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 324–346, Fig. 15. Instead, Tagg’s specification simply discloses that SIP is used to perform call management functions. Id. ¶¶ 245–247. Tagg’s cases 1 and 6, relied on by Petitioner, teach that Tagg’s server can ensure that the end user appears to the rest of the world (i.e. the devices upstream of the SIP server) as if no network change is being made. Ex. 1005 ¶ 320. Tagg further teaches that either “make before break” or “make and break” schemes may be used. Id. But these cases do not explain how any SIP signaling sequences are used, much less how or even that any SIP signaling sequence is maintained when a network switches. At most, Tagg teaches that each path will have an IP (Internet Protocol) address, which may be the same or different for each path. Id. ¶ 288. But IP addresses are part of the IP disclosing or suggesting that IP addressing schemes are maintained or otherwise accounted for in a network switch, that would not be sufficient to disclose or suggest that SIP signal sequences are maintained. Furthermore, under our construction of limitation 1.6, it must be shown that the same rules or paradigm used to identify that an incoming SIP packet is the next SIP packet in a sequence, regardless of whether that packet is transmitted on the first network path or the one of a plurality of alternative network paths. The Petition is silent on this point. The closest Petitioner comes is the assertion that Figure 15 depicts preservation of “the same SIP signaling sequence,” with the Petitioner’s explanation being that Tagg allows simultaneous connections across a WWAN and a WLAN, and that “POSITAs would have understood that Tagg’s SIP protocol uniformity in directionality teaches that a ‘SIP signaling sequence . . . is maintained.’” Pet. 39–40.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,009,554
• Panasonic Automotive Systems Co., Ltd. v. Unm Rainforest InnovationsInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00364 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 8 or substitute claims 44–47, 49, and 50 unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons provided below, after considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine, based on the record before us, there is not a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “in the field of the ’096 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and around two years of experience in the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 57). In turn, Patent Owner submits a slightly different description: that a person of ordinary skill in the art “in the technical field of the ’096 patent would have had at least a master’s degree in computer engineering or electrical engineering, or equivalent work experience, along with at least 1 year of experience related specifically to wireless communications, including knowledge of MIMO [(Multiple-Input Multiple-Output)] and OFDM.” Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 18). For the purpose of determining whether to institute trial, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’096 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art but our conclusions would be the same under Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Of note, the numerous claim terms construed in the Apple Litigation and referenced by the parties include the terms “data” and “non-data.” See Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005); Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 1005). Both parties agree that “data” and “non-data” are to be given their plain and ordinary meanings. See Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005); Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 1005). As demonstrated in the analysis below, for the purpose of determining whether to institute review, we need not construe any claim terms and phrases to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Joint Proposal’s legacy signal field (L-SIG) does not disclose data as recited in limitation 8[a]. Both parties agree that the term “data” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 16–18; Prelim. Resp. 22–23. The ’096 Patent utilizes the term “data” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. See Ex. 1001 generally. We find that the Joint Proposal likewise utilizes the term “data” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, to describe data fields that include the PHY sub-layer Service Data Unit, and shown in each of the legacy PLCP packet format, Mixed Mode PLCP packet format, and Green Field PLCP packet format that include the PHY sub-layer Service Data Unit. See Ex. 1008, 11:11–13, Fig. 1. Indeed, in addressing limitation 8[b], Petitioner identifies the Joint Proposal’s data field in the Mixed Mode PLCP format as disclosing “data configured in a second format compatible with a second communication system,” as recited in limitation 8[b]. See Pet. 26–27. Petitioner, however, does not direct us to where the Joint Proposal discloses or describes the legacy signal field (L- SIG) as “data” according to its plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 25–26. Petitioner’s citations to the Joint Proposal fail to provide sufficient support for Petitioner’s position that L-SIG discloses “data” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. See Ex. 1008, 11:4–6, 11:18–23. Petitioner further does not provide sufficient explanation why the Joint Proposal’s L- SIG otherwise constitutes “data,” according to the plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 25–26. The testimony of Dr. Hansen, cited by Petitioner to support its arguments, is no more illuminating. Compare Pet. 25–26, with Ex. 1002 ¶ 177.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,265,096
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Network System Technologies, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00339 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 12 was obvious over any of the four asserted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The Petition, to justify institution of review, must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to claim 12. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition has not met this standard and do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “E. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that at the time of the alleged invention an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent technical degree, and two or more years of experience with system-on-chip, interconnect, or networking technologies. Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. After reviewing the record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE DISTRICT COURT’S DETERMINATION OF INDEFINITENESS Neither party requests that we construe the optimal moment limitation. Pet. 8–9; Prelim. Resp. 25–28. Further, we see no need to construe this limitation sua sponte. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For background, however, we address the claim” slip op. at 7

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

    “optimal moment limitation is subjective (and repeating that assertion in its Petition), Petitioner provides no explanation of why Bahadiroglu’s use of that term would have a meaning falling within the scope of the subjective meaning for that term in claim 12. Pet. 28–31 & n.4; Prelim. Reply 3–5. Petitioner has not explained what that subjective meaning of optimal is in the ’800 patent’s claims or why that term as used in Bahadiroglu would satisfy that subjective meaning in the ’800 patent’s claims. Pet. 28–31; Prelim. Reply 3–5. Thus, Petitioner’s showing is insufficient. Second, Petitioner has not explained why the disclosure of an optimal interval teaches or suggests transmission at an optimal time. Pet. 28–31. Spacing transmissions apart by an optimal interval would not inherently result in transmissions being performed at the optimal times. The optimal interval could involve transmissions that are not at the optimal times (when time is viewed by itself), and transmissions at the optimal times may not have the optimal interval separating them. We recognize that it is possible that in some, or many, cases an optimal interval would teach or at least suggest transmissions at optimal times. Petitioner, however, has not explained why it does in this case. Id.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,086,800
• Qualcomm Incorporated / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Network System Technologies, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00355 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2

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

    “Based on Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in view of the Samsung litigation and the Qualcomm litigation. See Prelim. Resp. 10–22; supra § II.B. Petitioner argues that we should decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. See Pet. 82–84. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. See infra §§ IV.E–IV.I. Hence, we do not consider discretionary denial under § 314(a).” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of analysis, we adopt Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’893 patent as well as the asserted prior art. For instance, “a master’s degree” and “three years of work experience” would have allowed someone to understand the ’893 patent as well as the asserted prior art. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 32. Moreover, someone with a higher skill level will understand the technology at least as well as someone with a lower skill level. See Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Hence, “it is generally easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We note that our analysis would not change if we adopted Patent Owner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan.” slip op. at 19

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

    “for “each data package comprising N data elements” is “significantly broader” than Petitioner’s proposed construction. See Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1026, 25; Ex. 1027 ¶ 164; Ex. 2034, 26. To decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial, we must determine the meaning of “each data package comprising N data elements.” Based on the current record, we agree with Petitioner that “each data package comprising N data elements” means “every data package communicated by the network stations has a fixed size of N data elements.”” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,072,893
• Servicenow, Incorporated v. Inquisient IncorporatedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · IPR2023-01072 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–47 were unpatentable over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that 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.”” slip op. at 2

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

    “argument does not change Petitioner’s recognition that the ’585 patent describes a data repository as including modules, such that an ordinarily skilled person would have understood a “module” to be a portion of a data repository. The ’585 patent includes an extensive discussion of tables and relationships between tables, but does not define the term “module.” In the ’585 patent, the term “module” appears in the claims; “module” also appears in the “SUMMARY,” in a manner that parrots the language of the claims. Ex. 1001, 2:1–14. The term “module” is a classic nonce word that does not connote definite structure. See, e.g., Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“‘Module’ is a well-known nonce word that can operate as a substitute for ‘means’ in the context of [pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.] § 112, para. 6” and “is simply a generic description for software or hardware that performs a specified function” that “does not provide any indication of structure.”). Nonetheless, claim 48, which is not challenged in the Petition, does not use the term “module,” instead reciting limitations similar to those of claim 1 with express use of “means”-plus-function language, thereby and equivalents thereof. Ex. 1001, 20:47–22:3; see 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6 (2012). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, we ascribe a broader meaning to the term “module” in claims 1–47.” slip op. at 10

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

    “translator generates eight relational database tables, one for each class (i.e., (1) Component, (2) Analog Component, (3) Memory, (4) Dynamic Memory, (5) Static Memory, (6) Manufacturer, (7) Domestic [manufacturer], and (8) Foreign [manufacturer]), but Althoff’s system does not generate a relational database table called Class because there is no object called Class. Id. at 29–32 (citing Ex. 1006, 4:58–49, 5:8–10, Figs. 1, 8). We agree with Patent Owner that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Althoff does not teach the claimed class module, i.e., a module (or table) configured to define at least one class of the plurality of elements (Althoff’s objects 101) and store that class. Patent Owner’s contention that there would be no reason to generate a class Class 301 table as Petitioner asserts is also persuasive. See Prelim. Resp. 31–32. As Patent Owner notes, by creating separate tables for each class, e.g., a Component table and a Manufacturer table, Althoff preserves the class information. Id. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions concerning a class Class 301 table fail because “if objects were already stored as table in the object database, there would be no need for Althoff to build a translator to translate objects into table.” Id. at 33. Petitioner relies on Moore’s disclosure of a virtual folders description database to teach the named text module recited in limitation 1[i]. Pet. 5, 28. Petitioner does not identify any disclosure in Moore that teaches the subject matter not disclosed by Althoff. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that limitation 1[e] is taught or suggested by the combination of Althoff and Moore.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Petitioner’s Contentions Concerning Reasons to Combine Althoff and Moore Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Althoff and Moore to improve end-user experience by avoiding the need for complicated SQL queries or for navigating complicated tables to access objects stored in Althoff’s database. Pet. 10. Petitioner contends that SQL queries to access databases are often beyond the capabilities of ordinary users, but such users are already familiar with working with folders. Id. at 11–12. Petitioner contends that, because represent it as a container that is like a folder, a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine Moore’s virtual folders with Althoff’s database to simplify use of such systems. Id. at 11–13 (citing Ex. 1003, White Decl. ¶¶ 62–69; Ex. 1007, 3:36–41).” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,219,585
• Netflix, Inc. v. Lauri ValjakkaInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 7, 2023 · IPR2023-00423 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Netflix did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 10 or 11 were unpatentable over either asserted § 103 ground.

  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) (2023). 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). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to either claim challenged in the Petition. We therefore deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner “adopt[s] Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’102 Patent as well as the asserted prior art.” Prelim. Resp. 7. Based on our review of the record at this stage, we find Petitioner’s assessment to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (listing the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology as factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “1. “Fingerprint” Petitioner contends that the term “fingerprint” should be construed as “a bit string, derived (or computed) directly from the content, that uniquely represents the content.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55–57; Ex. 1005, 14:13–14; Ex. 1008, 10:3–5; Ex. 1012 ¶ 720; Ex. 1013, 14). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s construction. Prelim. Resp. 7. To the extent necessary for purposes of this Decision, we also adopt Petitioner’s construction.” slip op. at 9

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

    “For the reasons given, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that limitations [10B] and [10C] of claim 10 are taught or suggested by Downs. We therefore determine that the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this obviousness challenge as to claim 10. In view of the foregoing, we do not address Petitioner’s analysis or Patent Owner’s response to the other limitations of the claim.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,726,102
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 2, 2023 · IPR2022-01480 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Roth and its combinations did not show a reasonable likelihood of establishing the challenged claims’ obviousness.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. We therefore deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Roth teaches or suggests the claimed “third-party server computer” under our claim construction. In discussing claim construction, we concluded that there is a distinction in the challenged claims between the system performing the claimed process and the “third-party server computer” that is authorized to cause display of the advertisement in claim 1. See supra Section III.C. We concluded from the language of the claims and the prosecution history that the “third-party server computer” cannot be part of the recited “system comprised of one or more computers.” Id. We are persuaded that the Petition fails to establish that Roth’s web server system (identified by Petitioner as the “third-party server computer”) is distinct from the claimed “system comprised of one or more computers,” as is required by our construction. As discussed supra, in discussing the preamble the Petition identifies web server 310 and view server 320 (part of the alleged “third-party server computer”) as part of the “system comprised of one or more computers.” See Pet. 19. As Patent Owner points out, this is not an “isolated or accidental” oversight on the part of Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 11. In Petitioner’s analysis of claim element 1(b), Petitioner contends that “[t]he HUD [historic user] data is thus ‘received by the computer system,’ i.e., by the system which includes view server 320.” Pet. 34 (emphasis and highlighting omitted) (quoted at Prelim. Resp. 12). Petitioner further argues that the web server computer system in Roth can be separate from the “other computers” in Roth, citing the first and second media properties and the bidding agents. Pet. 24. This argument also is unavailing. Our construction requires the “third-party server computer” to be separate from the “system comprised of one or more computers” recited in the preamble, which according to Petitioner includes servers 310 and 320. Id. at 19. Those computers are also part of the web server system in Roth (id. at 18) identified as the “third-party server computer” (id. at 20), and therefore, the web server system cannot be separate from the “third-party computer system.”” slip op. at 18

  • 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 that construction of this term is necessary and we find that the claimed “third party server computer” in claims 1, 17, and 21 and their dependent claims must be different from the “system [comprised of]/[comprising] one or more computers” recited in the preambles of claims 1 and 21 and the “tangible computer-server device” recited in the preamble of claim 17.3 As Patent Owner points out, the language of the claims compels this construction. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. The Federal Circuit reminds us that “the Supreme Court made clear that the claims are ‘of primary importance, in the effort to ascertain precisely what it is that is patented.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 570 (1876)). Claims 1 and 21 recite that the “system” described in each claim’s preamble is programmed to “automatically . . . direct[], to a third-party server computer controlling advertising space on a second media property, indicia of a condition . . . for display of an advertisement.” Ex. 1001, 12:64– 3 We do not express an opinion as to whether the preambles are limiting. 13:1, 14:56–60. Claim 17 similarly recites that the “tangible computer-server device” described in the claim preamble is programmed to “automatically . . . direct[], to a third-party server computer controlling advertising space on a second media property, indicia of a condition . . . for display of an advertisement.” Id. at 14:17–21. If the third-party server computer were not separate from the “system [comprising of/comprising] one or more computers” or “tangible computer-server device,” the system or device would be directing indicia to itself. This is not a reasonable construction. “[T]he context of the surrounding words of the claim . . . must be considered in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of those terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at1314 (quoting ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owner asserts that the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Prelim. Resp. 13–26. Because we deny institution on the merits of Petitioner’s challenges to patentability, we need not address Patent Owner’s arguments urging denial of institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,959,146

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.