- PTAB · Nov 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00785 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 were unpatentable over either asserted § 103 combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). 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). 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). When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Petitioner’s single-reference allegations do not align with its two “combination” challenges identified above. As for its “combination” allegations, Petitioner does not identify, for example: (1) which limitations in claim 1 are missing in any of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski; (2) which aspects of any of these references requires modification to achieve the invention of claim 1; (3) which specific reference Petitioner posits to teach any such missing limitation in another reference or as the basis to modify a specific feature in a given reference; or (4) a rational reason as to why the skilled artisan would have combined particular teachings from one of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski with particular teachings of another such reference to achieve the invention of claim 1 as a whole.5 Instead, Petitioner improperly punts its burden to define its obviousness challenges to the Board (and Patent Owner). See, e.g., Pet. 38 (“To the extent the Board disagrees that [any particular] limitation is disclosed by the Chow/Reiffin combination 4 See, e.g., Pet. 16, 19 (“Thus, Chow and Reiffin both disclose or suggest claim [1b].” “Therefore, claim 1 was obvious over Chow and Reiffin separately and over their combination.”); see also id. at 12–19, 37–42. 5 Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have combined Reiffin with Chow for “increased computational power and the ability to solve larger problems.” Pet. 11. These generic “reasons” to combine the alleged teachings of Chow and Reiffin (and Kurowski) lack rational underpinning, particularly because Petitioner does not even identify which teachings of which references are being combined to achieve any particular limitation in claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 40 (“[Petitioner’s] ‘spaghetti on the wall’ approach fails [to] explain how Petitioners’ purported motivation for combining Chow and Reiffin fits with each of the at least 64 different possibilities for combining Chow and Reiffin.”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“and quotes various passages in Chow. Pet. 13–14. For example, Petitioner identifies that, under “Description of the Related Art,” Chow states: “Typically, workload is apportioned by somehow logically dividing the data to be processed. For example, a block of data might be divided evenly into a number of parts equal to the number of available threads, so that each thread can independently process a separate portion of the data. This is called ‘static’ or ‘a priori’ partitioning.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:38–42; Ex. 1022 ¶ 144). Petitioner also identifies that Chow describes “aggregate tasks” divisible into “multiple sub-tasks,” and “multiple task execution units are independently operated on-demand to sequentially self-allocate and execute sub-tasks of the aggregate task.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:66–2:15). After presenting such quoted passages from Chow, Petitioner proffers the conclusion that Chow discloses the Partitioning Limitation, but does so without sufficiently explaining why such passages allegedly teach or suggest the features of the Partitioning Limitation not only within the context of claim 1 as a whole, but given that Chow itself disparages such “static” or “a priori” partitioning as posing “a significant problem” (Ex. 1003, 1:52–58). Patent Owner persuasively responds (and we agree for the same” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“combination” challenges identified above. As for its “combination” allegations, Petitioner does not identify, for example: (1) which limitations in claim 1 are missing in any of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski; (2) which aspects of any of these references requires modification to achieve the invention of claim 1; (3) which specific reference Petitioner posits to teach any such missing limitation in another reference or as the basis to modify a specific feature in a given reference; or (4) a rational reason as to why the skilled artisan would have combined particular teachings from one of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski with particular teachings of another such reference to achieve the invention of claim 1 as a whole.5 Instead, Petitioner improperly punts its burden to define its obviousness challenges to the Board (and Patent Owner). See, e.g., Pet. 38 (“To the extent the Board disagrees that [any particular] limitation is disclosed by the Chow/Reiffin combination 4 See, e.g., Pet. 16, 19 (“Thus, Chow and Reiffin both disclose or suggest claim [1b].” “Therefore, claim 1 was obvious over Chow and Reiffin separately and over their combination.”); see also id. at 12–19, 37–42. 5 Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have combined Reiffin with Chow for “increased computational power and the ability to solve larger problems.” Pet. 11. These generic “reasons” to combine the alleged teachings of Chow and Reiffin (and Kurowski) lack rational underpinning, particularly because Petitioner does not even identify which teachings of which references are being combined to achieve any particular limitation in claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 40 (“[Petitioner’s] ‘spaghetti on the wall’ approach fails [to] explain how Petitioners’ purported motivation for combining Chow and Reiffin fits with each of the at least 64 different possibilities for combining Chow and Reiffin.”). slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,257,582 - Charter Communications, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01232 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any obviousness ground; it also found the petition time-barred.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“later than one month after we initially instituted inter partes review in the Comcast IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). As discussed above, however, inter partes review is no longer instituted in the Comcast IPR. Under these circumstances, we do not grant Petitioner’s Joinder Motion because there is no pending proceeding to join. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (“If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition . . . that the Director . . . determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review.”). Petitioner’s Joinder Motion is denied.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“least in part on a second message including at least one command in a second format.’” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1104, 168–173). The cited portion of the prosecution history shows that the applicant distinguished its claims from the prior art based on different first and second formats. The applicant argued in particular, Applicant submits that [the prior art] is completely silent with regard to “receiving, from the remote server device, a first message that includes at least one command in a first format, wherein the first message is received based at least in part on a second message including at least one command in a second format having been sent from the associated remote computing device.” In fact, [the prior art] never describes commands in different formats. . . . Ex. 1104, 170. Based on the applicant’s argument in this regard, we find that the prosecution history limits the scope of claim 1 to different first and second formats. In other words, the applicant’s argument during prosecution distinguishing its claims from the prior art based on different first and second formats overcomes the presumption based on claim differentiation that claim 1 encompasses first and second formats that are the same. See Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’Ship, 778 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Although claim differentiation is a useful analytic tool, it cannot . . . relieve any claim of limitations imposed by the prosecution history.”). Accordingly, claim 1 is limited to different first and second formats.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“argument and evidence. As discussed above in the claim construction section, the recited first and second formats are limited to different formats. See supra Part IV.A. To satisfy this aspect of limitation 1D under its theory, Petitioner needs to show that in Danciu the format of the control information sent from the remote control to the server is different from the format of the control information sent from the server to the controlled device. The cited disclosures in Danciu, however, do not teach or suggest that these formats are different. Nor does Petitioner explain adequately how Danciu’s disclosures teach or suggest the two formats are different. We recognize that the control information in Danciu may be “processed” or “repackaged,” as Petitioner asserts, but it is not clear that the control information is processed or repackaged such that the format of the control information sent from the remote control to the server and the format of the control information sent from the server to the controlled device are different. Petitioner does not rely on Mahajan to teach or suggest the recited first and second formats but relies on Mahajan instead as providing “implementation details for transmission of commands for controlling a client.” Pet. 27. Petitioner contends that its proposed combination of Danciu and Mahajan would have provided a system where “Danciu’s remote control would translate commands associated with a first type of media playing application to a generic format, transmit them to the controlled device, which would translate them to a command associated with a second type of media playing application for execution.” Id. at 31. In other words, the controlled device would receive the generic commands sent from the remote control and then translate the generic commands. It is not clear how the proposed combination in this way teaches or suggests the format of a command sent from the remote control to a server is different from the format of a command sent from the server to the controlled device.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Aldrey and Mahajan meets limitation 1D under Petitioner’s second theory. Petitioner only alleges that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Mahajan’s RTS Media Abstraction Module could operate at a server like Aldrey’s service provider network 103. Pet. 65. The Federal Circuit has explained that “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner does not adequately explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered locating Mahajan’s abstraction module at a server, even if the abstraction module could operate at the server. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”). We note Petitioner further argues that combining Mahajan and Aldrey would have provided a system where “Aldrey’s end terminal would translate commands associated with a first type of media playing application to a command associated with a second type of media playing application on a STB.” Pet. 66–67; see also id. at 66 (“Mahajan’s server-command teachings could be implemented on Aldrey’s end terminal remote control.”). Arguing that Aldrey’s end terminal would translate commands seems inconsistent with Petitioner’s earlier argument for locating Mahajan’s abstraction module (which translates commands) at Aldrey’s network service provider. See id. at 65–67. Moreover, it is not readily apparent how command translation by Aldrey’s end terminal––rather than Aldrey’s network service provider–– teaches or suggests the format of a command sent from the end terminal to the network service provider is different from the format of a command sent from the network service provider to the STB. Petitioner does not close these logical gaps.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,048,751 - Delta Electronics, Inc. v. Vicor CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · May 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00134 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged, undisclaimed claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. 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; see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute inter partes review on any of the alleged grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“it filed with the Office a statutory disclaimer of claims 22, 24, 39, and 40 of the challenged patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Ex. 2028, 1; see Prelim. Resp. 7 n.1. The disclaimer of a claim “shall . . . be considered as part of the original patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 253(a). The language “considered as part of the original patent” means that a patent subject to a disclaimer under § 253(a) “is treated as though the disclaimed claims never existed.” Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“This court has interpreted the term ‘considered as part of the original patent’ in section 253 to mean that the patent is treated as though the disclaimed claims never existed.”) (citing Altoona Publix Theatres v. Am. Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477, 492 (1935)); Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that the Board’s interference jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 291 required “the existence of an interference, and a claim that ‘never existed’ [due to a statutory disclaimer] cannot form the basis for an interference”); Facebook, Inc. v. Skky, LLC, CBM2016- 00091, Paper 12 at 8 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2017) (precedential as to § II.B.2) (“The Federal Circuit has held consistently that claims disclaimed under § 253(a) should be treated as though they never existed.”). Thus, even though claims of the challenged patent existed at the time the Petition here was filed, we must now treat the challenged patent as if it had never included those claims. Accordingly, no inter partes review will be instituted for disclaimed claims 22, 24, 39, and 40 of the ’950 patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”). Nevertheless, our analysis continues because not all of the claims challenged in the Petition have been disclaimed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on our review of the record, we do not construe any limitations or terms of the challenged claims because construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy” and we do not discern any such controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Here, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’950 patent would have had “at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of work experience relating to power electronics and the design of switching power converters, with more experience potentially substituting for education or vice versa.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 29; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 35–38; Ex. 1010, 80). Patent Owner does not assert a different level of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention at this time. See generally Prelim. Resp. Additionally, Dr. Rivas-Davila applies Petitioner’s definition in his declaration. Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with (1) the problems addressed in the ’950 Patent and (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,199,950 - Sony Electronics Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01118 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Sony did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Avendano ’880 and Hou; the dependent-claim challenges also failed.
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 it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’213 patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Limitation [1b] requires, in part, “generating a first quantity by applying a calibration to at least one of the first signal and the second signal.” Petitioner’s proposed combination does not disclose this portion of limitation [1b] because Avendano ’880’s alleged calibration does not generate the first quantity. Rather, Petitioner relies on Avendano ’880’s gain to generate a calibrated second signal, which “would be subsequently processed to generate a ‘first quantity.’” Pet. 34 (emphasis added). That is, Petitioner relies on Hou’s “first minimum estimate unit 508” to subsequently process the calibrated second signal to generate the first quantity. Id. But the combination does not meet the claim because claim 1 requires the calibration to generate the first quantity: “generating a first quantity by applying a calibration,” and Petitioner relies on subsequent processing after Avendano ’880’s alleged calibration to generate the first quantity.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“Concurrently with the Petition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder seeking joinder as a party in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC, IPR2023-00279 (“the Amazon IPR”) and consolidation with the Amazon IPR. Paper 3, 1. Patent Owner filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Paper 7. Subsequently, the Amazon IPR terminated based on settlement. IPR2023-00279, Paper 17. We therefore dismiss Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder as moot.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The Petition construes no terms. Pet. 7. The Preliminary Response proposes construing “filter, wherein the filter is formed,” as “adaptive filter comprising a signal ratio, wherein the filter is formed.” Prelim. Resp. 12– 14. We determine that we need not construe this term because, for the reasons we explain below, Petitioner has not met its institution burden regardless of the construction of this term. We further determine that no other terms require construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,321,213 - Sony Electronics Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 28, 2023 · IPR2023-01153 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that the record does not support Petitioner’s assertion that Brandstein teaches or suggests the independent claim requirement, “wherein the first virtual microphone and the second virtual microphone are distinct virtual directional microphones with substantially similar responses to noise.” Contrary to Petitioner’s interpretation of Brandstein Figure 5.2, that figure does not lead to an inference that the individual microphone responses have similar responses to noise. Prelim. Resp. 12–13. In effect, Petitioner is arguing that knowing that the sum of two numbers is equal to “2” necessarily means that each number is “1”, as opposed, for example, to one number being “2” and the other “0”. Moreover, as discussed above, Brandstein’s description of Figure 5.1 demonstrates that the virtual microphones of Brandstein do not have “substantially similar responses to noise.” Prelim. Resp. 9–11. Likewise, Figure 5. 3 of Brandstein also refutes Petitioner’s assertion the virtual microphone noise responses are substantially similar. Prelim. Resp. 13.8 8 We need not address Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s reliance on different chapters of Brandstein is unjustified. Accordingly, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that independent claims 1 and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Brandstein and Gannot.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the record does not support Petitioner’s assertion that Brandstein teaches or suggests the independent claim requirement, “wherein the first virtual microphone and the second virtual microphone are distinct virtual directional microphones with substantially similar responses to noise.” Contrary to Petitioner’s interpretation of Brandstein Figure 5.2, that figure does not lead to an inference that the individual microphone responses have similar responses to noise. Prelim. Resp. 12–13. In effect, Petitioner is arguing that knowing that the sum of two numbers is equal to “2” necessarily means that each number is “1”, as opposed, for example, to one number being “2” and the other “0”. Moreover, as discussed above, Brandstein’s description of Figure 5.1 demonstrates that the virtual microphones of Brandstein do not have “substantially similar responses to noise.” Prelim. Resp. 9–11. Likewise, Figure 5. 3 of Brandstein also refutes Petitioner’s assertion the virtual microphone noise responses are substantially similar. Prelim. Resp. 13.8 8 We need not address Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s reliance on different chapters of Brandstein is unjustified. Accordingly, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that independent claims 1 and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Brandstein and Gannot.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“On June 30, 2023, Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder to And Consolidation With Related Inter Partes Review IPR2023-00251, which Patent Owner opposed on July 31, 2023. Papers 3, 7. However, on August 8, 2023, that Proceeding was terminated due to settlement. IPR2023-00251, Paper 15. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for joinder is denied as moot.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The parties submit that no claim construction is necessary. Pet. 23; Prelim. Resp. 6. Therefore, we do not construe the claims. D.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,122,357 - LG Electronics Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 28, 2023 · IPR2023-01134 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that the record does not support Petitioner’s assertion that Brandstein teaches or suggests the independent claim requirement, “wherein the first virtual microphone and the second virtual microphone are distinct virtual directional microphones with substantially similar responses to noise.” Contrary to Petitioner’s interpretation of Brandstein Figure 5.2, that figure does not lead to an inference that the individual microphone responses have similar responses to noise. Prelim. Resp. 12–13. In effect, Petitioner is arguing that knowing that the sum of two numbers is equal to “2” necessarily means that each number is “1”, as opposed, for example, to one number being “2” and the other “0”. Moreover, as discussed above, Brandstein’s description of Figure 5.1 demonstrates that the virtual microphones of Brandstein do not have “substantially similar responses to noise.” Prelim. Resp. 9–11. Likewise, Figure 5. 3 of Brandstein also refutes Petitioner’s assertion the virtual microphone noise responses are substantially similar. Prelim. Resp. 13.7 Accordingly, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the record does not support Petitioner’s assertion that Brandstein teaches or suggests the independent claim requirement, “wherein the first virtual microphone and the second virtual microphone are distinct virtual directional microphones with substantially similar responses to noise.” Contrary to Petitioner’s interpretation of Brandstein Figure 5.2, that figure does not lead to an inference that the individual microphone responses have similar responses to noise. Prelim. Resp. 12–13. In effect, Petitioner is arguing that knowing that the sum of two numbers is equal to “2” necessarily means that each number is “1”, as opposed, for example, to one number being “2” and the other “0”. Moreover, as discussed above, Brandstein’s description of Figure 5.1 demonstrates that the virtual microphones of Brandstein do not have “substantially similar responses to noise.” Prelim. Resp. 9–11. Likewise, Figure 5. 3 of Brandstein also refutes Petitioner’s assertion the virtual microphone noise responses are substantially similar. Prelim. Resp. 13.7 Accordingly, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that 7 We need not address Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s reliance on different chapters of Brandstein is unjustified. independent claims 1 and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Brandstein and Gannot.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“On June 29, 2023, Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder to And Consolidation With Related Inter Partes Review IPR2023-00251, which Patent Owner opposed on July 31, 2023. Papers 3, 7. However, on August 8, 2023, that Proceeding was terminated due to settlement. IPR2023-00251, Paper 15. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for joinder is denied as moot.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Pet. 23–24 (citing Stern Decl. ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art “[f]or the purposes of this Preliminary Response only.” Prelim. Resp. 7. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,122,357 - Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2022-00888 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution: Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1–13, and trying claim 42 alone would be inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“institution that Elko discloses a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1 and Petitioner does not rely on Boll or Buck for teaching a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1, Petitioner does not establish sufficiently for purposes of institution that the combined disclosures in Elko, Boll, and Buck teach claim 1’s subject matter. See Pet. 23–25; Prelim. Reply 1–2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 55–58; supra § IV.D.4(a). Hence, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in proving claim 1 unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Elko, Boll, and Buck.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“for purposes of institution that Elko discloses a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1. See Pet. 23–25, 36–38; Prelim. Reply 1–2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 55–58, 81–82. For forming the “first virtual microphone” and the “second virtual microphone” claim 1 recites three different signals: “a first signal,” “a second signal,” and “a first intermediate signal” formed by applying a filter to “the first signal.” Ex. 1001, 37:5–9, 37:16–19. “Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.” Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,” slip op. at 30
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“for purposes of institution that Elko discloses a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1. See Pet. 23–25, 36–38; Prelim. Reply 1–2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 55–58, 81–82. For forming the “first virtual microphone” and the “second virtual microphone” claim 1 recites three different signals: “a first signal,” “a second signal,” and “a first intermediate signal” formed by applying a filter to “the first signal.” Ex. 1001, 37:5–9, 37:16–19. “Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.” Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,” slip op. at 30
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“the ’213 patent. Pet. 3, 23–83. As discussed above, Petitioner fails to satisfy the “reasonable likelihood” institution standard for four of the five challenges and thirteen of the fourteen challenged claims. See supra §§ IV.D–IV.E. At best, Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” institution standard for only one of the five challenges and only one of the 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. fourteen challenged claims. See supra § IV.F. These circumstances weigh in favor of exercising our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. See, e.g., Netscout Sys., Inc. v. Longhorn HD LLC, IPR2021-01258, Paper 11 at 23–24 (PTAB Feb. 10, 2022) (exercising discretion to deny institution); Sling TV L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01391, Paper 7 at 25–27 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2020) (exercising discretion to deny institution).” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,321,213 - Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 21, 2022 · IPR2022-00348 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Agiwal and Abedini were entitled to their provisional priority dates, leaving no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–15.
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 it is determined that “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 (2018). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims, and we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Fatal to the Petition, though, Petitioner did not establish that the subject matter relied upon for prior art was effectively filed in the provisional applications. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2), 102(d). Under the AIA, a provisional application must “describe[] the subject matter” relied upon as prior art in the reference patent. 35 U.S.C. §102(d); see also MPEP § 2154.01(b). Petitioner does not assert, much less show, that the provisional applications satisfy the subject-matter requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that Agiwal and Abedini are entitled to the priority dates of their provisional applications, and Petitioner has not shown a likelihood that it would prevail in its challenges to any claims of the ’915 patent.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedNot shown unpatentable
“Fatal to the Petition, though, Petitioner did not establish that the subject matter relied upon for prior art was effectively filed in the provisional applications. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2), 102(d). Under the AIA, a provisional application must “describe[] the subject matter” relied upon as prior art in the reference patent. 35 U.S.C. §102(d); see also MPEP § 2154.01(b). Petitioner does not assert, much less show, that the provisional applications satisfy the subject-matter requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that Agiwal and Abedini are entitled to the priority dates of their provisional applications, and Petitioner has not shown a likelihood that it would prevail in its challenges to any claims of the ’915 patent.” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,484,915 - PTAB · Jun 26, 2020 · IPR2019-00235 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show Flinchbaugh I was publicly accessible before the patent’s effective filing date.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. We review our Decision denying institution under an abuse of discretion standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In the Decision, we determined Petitioner had failed to establish sufficiently that Flinchbaugh I is prior art to the ’912 patent. Id. at 10–12. In particular, we determined that neither the Petition nor the evidence cited therein, which included the Original Florio Declaration, supported Petitioner’s contention that Flinchbaugh I was disseminated or otherwise accessible to the public before the effective filing date of the ’912 patent. Id. at 11–12. Because each of the asserted grounds of unpatentability relied upon Flinchbaugh I, we found Petitioner did not show a reasonable 1 Flinchbaugh et al., Autonomous Scene Monitoring System, Proceedings of the Joint 10th Annual Government-Industry Security Technology Symposium & Exhibition, June 20–23, 1994, pp. 205–209. (Ex. 1005, “Flinchbaugh I”). likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, and we determined not to institute an inter partes review. Id. at 12.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner
“or printed publications.” Whether a reference qualifies as a “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the effective filing date. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A reference is considered “publicly accessible” upon a satisfactory showing that the document has been “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence[] can locate it.” Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).” slip op. at 4
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,868,912 - Lassen Therapeutics 1, Inc. v. Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd., And National University Of SignaporeInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · PGR2019-00053 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–10 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying that standard, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented fails to demonstrate it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the challenged claims of the ’603 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of post-grant review of claims 1–10 of the ’603 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states that, for purposes of the preliminary response only, it does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19. Based on the current record and for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed description of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, we find that the prior art of record reflects this level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- 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 “Interleukin 11 receptor α (IL- 11Rα) antibody” should not be construed to include antibodies that bind to IL-11Rα of non-human species but not to the human version of this protein because such a construction does not comport with the language of claim 1, which is clearly directed to treating a human subject. See Pause Tech. v. TiVo, 419 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (rejecting interpretation of claim element that ignored “other language appearing later in the claim” in stating that ‘“[p]roper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.’”) (citing Hockerson– Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed.Cir.1999)). Construing this term to include antibodies that bind solely to non-human IL- 11Rα would be inconsistent with a claim directed to treatment of a human. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we construe “Interleukin 11 receptor α (IL-11Rα) antibody” to mean “any natural or synthetic, monoclonal or polyclonal antibody made using any animal system including phage, or fragment or derivative thereof, that binds to human IL-11Rα.”” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner appears to have overlooked the ’603 patent Specification’s disclosure of anti-IL-11Rα antibodies. Specifically, the ’603 patent lists “monoclonal antibody clone 025 (Sino Biological), clone EPR5446 (Abcam), clone 473143 (R & D Systems), clones 8E2 and 8E4 described in US 2014/0219919 A1 [Edwards] and the monoclonal antibodies described in Blanc et al (J. Immunol Methods. 2000 Jul. 31; 241(1–2); 43–59).” Ex. 1001, 18:41–46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 176.6 Edwards, which Petitioner relies on for its obviousness and anticipation grounds, is directed to antibodies “that bind to IL-11Rα and neutralize IL-11 signaling.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 13. Table 1 of Edwards lists clones 8E2 and 8E4 and sixty-three other antibodies (including variants of 8E2) as “exemplary IL-11Rα-binding proteins.” Id. ¶ 362. Table 1 of Edwards also includes the sequence ID numbers for the heavy and light chains of the variable regions of each of these sixty-five clones and the amino acid sequences for each are disclosed in the sequence listing. Id. ¶ 362, p. 46– 104.7” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,106,603
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.