- Alpinestars S.P.A. / Alipinestars USA Inc. v. Dainese S.P.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00750 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–22 under the challenged obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petitioner misstates the Decision’s reasoning. As is clear from the previous discussion, we determined that Petitioner’s articulated reasons for combining EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning, not because “EP’536 does not relate to ‘air bags,’” but because the means by which EP’536’s device inflates differs fundamentally from that of CN’180’s device. Dec. 17–18. Petitioner did not acknowledge this critical difference in the Petition, and continues not to do so in its Rehearing Request.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning because EP’536’s inflation mechanism differs fundamentally from CN’180’s inflation mechanism. Dec. 17–18. As we stated, whereas CN’180’s fall-protection belt uses an airbag that requires an external source of pressurized air to inflate, EP’536’s garment does not need an external inflation device because “the gas generating agent 18 in each envelope automatically generates gas and inflates the envelopes in response to rising temperatures.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 15; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 5, 19). This difference reflects the fundamentally different purposes of the two devices: CN’180’s device is designed to provide “fall protection” to, e.g., “elderly people,” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 1, 3), whereas EP’536’s device provides “adaptive thermal insulation” for, e.g., garments worn by fire fighters. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1–3, 250. Because of the different means by which EP’536’s and CN’180’s devices inflate and the different purposes for doing so, we were not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references as Petitioner proposed. Dec. 18. We further noted that the modification would not have improved the reusability of EP’536’s device “by having only one mechanism to recharge,” because EP’536’s “gas generating agent does not need any ‘mechanism to recharge.’” Dec. 18. Instead, we noted EP’536’s teaching that its gas generating agent “automatically recombines or condenses in response to a temperature decrease to return the envelopes, and therefore the garment, to its original thickness, at which point the gas generating agent is ready for subsequent reactivation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139–141). Finally, we determined that replacing EP’536’s envelopes with CN’180’s airbag “would have made EP’536’s invention unsuitable for its intended purpose: providing a protective garment with ‘adaptive thermal insulation.’” Dec. 19. We stated that “Petitioner does not suggest, and we have found nothing in the record to establish, that CN’180’s airbag would provide this feature.” Id. at 20.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“rationales for combining EP’536 and CN’180. Reh’g Req. 6–7. First, Petitioner asserts that we “improperly rejected Petitioner’s ‘simple substitution’ evidence in view of [the Board’s] incorrect conclusion that EP’536 does not disclose an ‘external source of inflation [EP’536’s dosing aids].’” Id. at 6 (citing Dec. 18–19). This argument is unpersuasive at least because, as we discussed above, EP’536’s dosing aids do not constitute an external source of inflation. Petitioner further argues that we incorrectly evaluated its “obvious to try” rationale because, contrary to our analysis, Petitioner did in fact identify a problem to be solved by its “finite number of solutions”: “simplify[ing] the design and reduc[ing] the number of required inflation mechanisms.” Id. at 6–7. The Petition’s entire “obvious to try” discussion is as follows: [A] POSITA would have found it obvious to try a one-piece airbag 10 with strip-shaped inflation units 12 in the EP’536- CN’180 airbag system because it would have been a selection from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (i.e., using one chamber with connected individual inflation units 12 versus multiple individual envelopes 20). 5 Petitioner also argues that dosing aids are “needed in order to make the disclosed device reusable.” Reh’g Req. 5–6. This is incorrect, as EP’536 conveys that the reusability of the device is a result of the gas generating agent condensing or recombining when temperatures fall. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139– 141. Even if it were true, however, it is unclear how it would support Petitioner’s argument. Pet. 16. As is evident, Petitioner did not identify a design need, market pressure, or other problem that would have been addressed by its identified “solutions,” and therefore we were not persuaded by this rationale. Dec. 19. Petitioner’s attempt to cure this deficiency in its Rehearing Request is tardy. We cannot misapprehend or overlook an assertion that Petitioner fails to make in the Petition. It is also insufficient. Petitioner does not provide any evidence of a known design need or market pressure to “simplify [EP’536’s] design” or reduce the number of “required inflation mechanism” it uses.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 12,012,065 - Alpinestars S.P.A. / Alpinestars USA Inc. v. Dainese S.P.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00750 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–22 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its three obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Because Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined EP’536 (with or without Hatton) and CN’180 in the proposed manner, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1 and 18. 5. Claims 2–17 and 19–22 Because Petitioner has not shown a reasonably likelihood of prevailing with respect to independent claims 1 and 18, Petitioner also has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the claims that depend therefrom (claims 2–17 and 19–22).” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not offer its own definition of the level of ordinary skill or dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. 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). As Petitioner’s unchallenged description of an ordinarily skilled artisan appears consistent with the subject matter discussed in the references and that of the challenged claims, for purposes of this Decision we apply Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“For purposes of our analysis, we need only address the meaning of “planar structure,” and only to note that this limitation requires that all portions of the casing body, when inflated against the first mesh portion, second mesh portion, and tie elements, “form a planar structure” when the casing body is inflated. This is evident from both the claim language and the written description of the ’065 patent. Limitation [1e] of claim 1 recites that in the inflated condition, “said portions of the casing body” are “inflated against said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements.” We understand “said portions of the casing body” to refer to all of the portions of the casing body. Likewise, “said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements” refers to the entire mesh structure recited in limitation [1a]. Thus, this limitation requires all of the casing-body portions to inflate against the entire mesh structure to form the “planar structure.” This reading is consistent with the Specification. The Specification teaches that “[t]he first mesh portion and the second mesh portion together with the tie elements determine with the casing body the final shape of the inflatable element,” which “can reach a generally flat and planar final shape.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–23; see also id. at 4:59–5:3 (teaching that the casing body inflated within the mesh structure results in a “globally planar structure”). Here, “inflatable element” refers to the entire structure because it is comprised of the mesh structure and casing body. Id. at 3:11–18. Thus, the entire structure, when inflated, is “generally flat and planar.”” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“portions of the casing body, when inflated against the first mesh portion, second mesh portion, and tie elements, “form a planar structure” when the casing body is inflated. This is evident from both the claim language and the written description of the ’065 patent. Limitation [1e] of claim 1 recites that in the inflated condition, “said portions of the casing body” are “inflated against said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements.” We understand “said portions of the casing body” to refer to all of the portions of the casing body. Likewise, “said first mesh portion, said second mesh portion, and said tie elements” refers to the entire mesh structure recited in limitation [1a]. Thus, this limitation requires all of the casing-body portions to inflate against the entire mesh structure to form the “planar structure.” This reading is consistent with the Specification. The Specification teaches that “[t]he first mesh portion and the second mesh portion together with the tie elements determine with the casing body the final shape of the inflatable element,” which “can reach a generally flat and planar final shape.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–23; see also id. at 4:59–5:3 (teaching that the casing body inflated within the mesh structure results in a “globally planar structure”). Here, “inflatable element” refers to the entire structure because it is comprised of the mesh structure and casing body. Id. at 3:11–18. Thus, the entire structure, when inflated, is “generally flat and planar.”” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,012,065 - Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 31, 2025 · IPR2024-01434 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the single claimed design was obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“shown that Chen686, alone or in combination with the various secondary references, teaches or suggests a camera having the same overall visual appearance of the claimed design. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging the patentability of the ’435 patent’s claim over Chen686 and the asserted secondary references.” slip op. at 30
- Other 314aNot reached
“These deficiencies in analysis raise the question of whether the Petition adequately identifies the number of actual challenges, and evidence supporting each, with the degree of particularity required of petitions in our forum. The Petition does not explain why so many grounds are necessary under the circumstances or why the Board should impose on Patent Owner the burden of defending against so many challenges. See generally Pet. An inter partes review based on 24 distinct grounds raised against a single claim, supported by analysis lacking in particularity, potentially burdens Patent Owner unduly and makes inefficient use of the Board’s resources. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019),22 56 (“The AIA was ‘designed to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.’” (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 40 (2011), 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 69 (Post grant reviews were meant to be “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation”)). Because we understand enough of the Petition’s analysis to address each group of asserted grounds on the merits, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based solely on this issue.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner submits that a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in industrial design or an equivalent field, or two years of experience designing cameras or camera housings.” Pet. 11 (citing Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 22–24). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposal regarding a designer of ordinary skill in the art. See Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 22–24.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In its claim construction section, Petitioner states that the ’435 patent “encompasses a rectangular body with flat faces, a rectangular lens cover extending outward from the front of the body, rectangular buttons/access elements, and rectangles for displays” and “[a]s a whole . . . gives an ordinary designer an overall visual impression of a rectangular design for a camera/camera housing.” Pet. 12 (citing Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 25–26). These descriptions are incredibly general and do not provide an adequate understanding of the overall visual appearance of the claimed design. Moreover, we do not find them helpful in our analysis and, therefore, do not adopt them as a claim construction. Patent Owner does not explicitly address claim construction. See” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham - Directv, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01061 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–3 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, and denied joinder to the non-instituted DISH Network IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the same reasons discussed in our Decision Denying Institution of the DISH Network IPR, Paper 14, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“Joinder is only permissible, however, when the inter partes review Petitioner seeks to join has been instituted. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). As the DISH Network IPR has not been instituted, we do not grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,889,759 - Directv, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01064 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 29–38 because Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, and denied its motion for joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Decision in IPR2024-00560 We denied institution of the DISH Network IPR. DISH Network IPR, Paper 11. In our Decision Denying Institution of the DISH Network IPR, we determined that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim. Id. at 19.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“Joinder is only permissible when the inter partes review Petitioner seeks to join has been instituted. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). As the DISH Network IPR has not been instituted, we do not grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 8,631,450 - Cox Communications, Inc. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00579 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Cox did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18 and 19 were unpatentable under either asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and any response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“The proposed level of the ordinarily skilled artisan in the instant proceeding is similar to that adopted in the ’446 IPR proceeding. Here, Petitioner has not argued that the already-adopted level is wrong or explained why any differences in proposed skill levels impact the outcome of this proceeding. For purposes of this Decision, we maintain our determination to adopt the proposed level of skill in IPR2024-00446 as that skill level is reasonable and consistent with the ’775 patent specification and the prior art. Our analysis and conclusions herein, however, would be the same using Petitioner’s proposed level of the ordinarily skilled artisan in the instant proceeding.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“disclosure. In particular, Schain discloses that Figure 3, relied on by Petitioner, “illustrates the logical architecture of a dual bridge” of broadband gateway 135. Ex. 1005 ¶ 45 (emphasis added). Schain also discloses that Figure 3’s “logical architecture features two bridges, one for the broadband modem portion (a cable bridge 315) and one for the residential gateway portion (a local bridge 345) of the broadband gateway 135.” Id. (emphasis added). Schain’s disclosure is of a logical separation, that is a separation in software. See, e.g., id. at 45. Claim 18, however, recites “a data networking engine implemented in a first circuit that includes at least one processor,” “a cable modem engine implemented in a second circuit that includes at least one processor,” and limitation 18d, which is “the second circuit being separate from the first circuit.” Petitioner has not shown that Schain’s disclosure of its logical architecture teaches or suggests “the second circuit being separate from the first circuit” (emphasis added). Petitioner also relies on Schain’s disclosure of “a separate driver layer” that is “[b]eneath each bridge.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 76). Schain discloses that “[t]he driver layer typically includes both hardware and software portions.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 31. Schain discloses that “[t]he hardware portion of the drive layer” is “the physical connection, such as Ethernet connections, USB connections, etc.” Id. Schain does not describe that the hardware portion of the driver layer includes a processor.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“engine’ is not shown as part of its line card 731.” Prelim. Resp. 51. Patent Owner argues “[t]o bridge this gap,” Petitioner “offers only a conclusory assertion that ‘it would be a trivial modification to have the DOCSIS processor 855 of line card 731 perform this function.’” Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 200). Patent Owner argues “missing limitations . . . simply cannot be added in an obviousness analysis based on a bare assertion of trivial[ity].” Id. Patent Owner argues “it is well-settled that such missing limitations cannot be supplied by conclusory statements about ‘basic knowledge’ or ‘common sense.’” Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2016); K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014); DSS Tech. Mgmt. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “[E]xpert testimony cannot take the place of disclosure from patents or printed publications.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (2019), (“Consolidated Practice Guide” or “CTPG”) 36.3 Limitation 18i recites “the DOCSIS MAC processor configured to process downstream PDU packets and forward the processed packets directly to the data networking engine without the involvement of the DOCSIS controller in order to boost downstream throughput.” Petitioner has not shown that any asserted prior art reference teaches or suggests limitation 18i. Petitioner may not rely on the testimony of Dr. Martin to bridge this gap. After consideration of the arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that limitation 18i is 3 The CTPG is at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. taught or suggested by Perlman or Crocker and Petitioner does not rely on Fox for this limitation. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 18 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Perlman, Crocker, and Fox.” slip op. at 26
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,223,775 - DISH Network LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00462 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–3, failing to support a motivation to combine Carhart and Grube.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A. Legal Standard Petitioner has the burden of proof. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“bandwidth, we agree with Patent Owner that this contention is unsubstantiated. Although there is sufficient evidence that Grube’s common bit-loading scheme improves upon and benefits infrastructures utilizing telephone lines, Petitioner provides no basis, or minimal at best, to bridge those advantages obtained in the context of Grube’s system to Carhart’s BCN. The evidence Petitioner cites from Grube and Dr. Williams (Ex. 1010, 2:48–3:17, 3:34–42, 4:18–26, 6:54–67, 7:13–8:14, 14:33–46, 34:45– 52, 57:29–38, Fig. 8; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 92–111) either describes how Grube’s bitloading scheme works in an infrastructure utilizing telephone lines or it represents that the bit-loading scheme is able to satisfy the need for a one-tomany and/or many-to-one communication system within an infrastructure that utilizes existing telephone wires. Dr. Williams’s testimony provides little, if any, persuasive information to bridge the gap between how Grube’s bit-loading scheme’s usefulness within a telephone line infrastructure translates to a skilled artisan into adding similar value within a BCN infrastructure; instead, Dr. Williams largely mirrors the naked assertions Petitioner makes and cites to the same evidence without further substantive reasoning. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Likewise, no underlying support or reasoning from either Petitioner or Dr. Williams is provided to substantiate the claim that “Grube represents a suitable, known technique for orchestrating digital communication between a central unit and multiple remote units in networks like Carhart’s” (Pet. 16). Grube suggest that its technique eliminates high data rate transmission path requirements to expand the usefulness and areas in which communications systems may be established. Ex. 1010, 57:29–38. Petitioner offers no basis for us to determine Grube’s technique for eliminating high data rate transmission path requirements would have been a known technique by skilled artisans for orchestrating digital communication between nodes within a network like Carhart’s that necessarily depend on the high data rate transmission paths that a BCN provides. Left unfulfilled is any clear explanation for why or how Grube’s bit- loading scheme would have actually improved or benefited Carhart’s system, which Petitioner admits already teaches a network with a centralized computer that uses existing coaxial cables to communicate with remote stations (Pet. 10). For example, Petitioner does not identify a single known shortcoming with Carhart’s one-to-many and/or many-to-one communication system infrastructure that a skilled artisan would recognize may be overcome with Grube’s bit-loading scheme. To the contrary, as Patent Owner notes, rather than needing a technique Grube teaches to address the lack of “adequate bandwidth” provided by telephone wires (Ex. 1010, 2:1–3), Carhart teaches that its BCN provides excess unused bandwidth (Ex. 1009, 8:36–38). Nor does Petitioner explain why or how a skilled artisan would have viewed Grube’s bit-loading scheme to be superior to the schemes Carhart utilizes to form a multi-casting infrastructure. Moreover, Petitioner’s admission Carhart teaches that teaches a BCN with a centralized computer that communicates with remote stations, further weakens Petitioner’s position because it shows Carhart’s infrastructure already accomplishes the same goal that Petition proposes a skilled artisan would have sought to achieve through the proposed modification. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that the Board’s” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner
“The last point we make about Petitioner’s reasoning is that it lacks any substantive support for why a skilled artisan would have chosen to configure Carhart’s node to have the functionality Grube describes for its primary site. Here again, Petitioner simply concludes that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have Carhart’s nodes act as Grube’s primary site without any evidence that such a correlation was known by skilled artisans or any analysis regarding the roles Carhart’s nodes and Grube’s primary site play within their respective infrastructures that would have led to that choice. Pet. 20–21. We are mindful that “[c]are must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.’” Grain Processing Corp. v. American–Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed.Cir.1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Petitioner’s failure to provide any clear explanation backed by supporting evidence for why a skilled artisan would have selected Carhart’s nodes to modify and perform as the primary site when implementing Grube’s bit-loading scheme suggests Petitioner improperly relied on hindsight reasoning to piece together elements to arrive at the claimed invention. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown with sufficient particularity why it would have been obvious to modify a node in Carhart, in view of Grube, to transmit a probe signal to the other respective nodes and determine a common bit-loading modulation scheme from the various bit-loading modulation schemes determined and provided by each of the other respective nodes that received a probe signal. And as a result, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Carhart and Grube as proposed. This failing undermines Petitioner’s showing as to independent claims 1–3 for all grounds.” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (a skilled artisan) would have had a degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks, e.g., a bachelor’s and three or more years of experience; a master’s and at least one year of experience; or a doctorate and some work experience. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’759 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,889,759 - DISH Network L.L.C. / DISH Network Service L.L.C. et al. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00555 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–6 and 12 were unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and any response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review of the ’566 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1–13, 68, 69). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, because we find, based on the preliminary record before us, that Petitioner’s proposed definition is reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’566 patent and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Cleveland and Hayashino in the manner recited in claim 1. More specifically, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that its proposed combination teaches or suggests limitation [1c].” slip op. at 30
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,320,566 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2024-00452 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving the challenged claims obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A. Legal Standard Petitioner has the burden of proof. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“have viewed Grube’s common bit-loading scheme as providing improvements over and benefits to the Gurantz system’s ability to multi-cast information, we agree with Patent Owner that this contention is unsubstantiated. Although there is sufficient evidence that Grube’s common bit-loading scheme improves upon and benefits infrastructures utilizing telephone lines, Petitioner provides no basis, or minimal at best, to bridge those advantages obtained in the context of Grube’s system to Gurantz’s BCN. The evidence Petitioner cites from Grube and Mr. Bertonis (Ex. 1009, 4:43–51, 17:20–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–136) either describes how Grube’s bitloading scheme works in an infrastructure utilizing telephone lines or it represents that the bit-loading scheme is able to satisfy the need for a one-tomany and/or many-to-one communication system within an infrastructure that utilizes existing telephone wires. Moreover, Mr. Bertonis’s testimony provides little, if any, persuasive information to bridge the gap between how Grube’s bit-loading scheme’s usefulness within a telephone line infrastructure translates to a skilled artisan into adding similar value within a BCN infrastructure; instead, Mr. Bertonis largely mirrors the naked assertions Petitioner makes and cites to the same evidence without further substantive reasoning. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that modulation scheme from a plurality received response signals that each include a respective bit-loading modulation scheme determined by a separate node. To be clear, “we accept” these contentions about what Grube discloses without making a determination about whether the evidence of record supports such a finding in order to focus our analysis on the dispositive issue, which is whether, in view of Grube, Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently a rationale with a rational underpinning for modifying the nodes in Gurantz’s BCN system in the manner claimed.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and three to four years of experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks. Additional education may substitute for experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 84). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’759 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,889,759 - DISH Network L.L.C. / DISH Network Service L.L.C. et al. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00560 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 29–38 were unpatentable, failing to explain why a skilled artisan would make the proposed combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“ANALYSIS Legal Standards Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A claim is unpatentable for obviousness if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)5; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4)” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks, e.g., a bachelor’s and three or more years of experience; a master’s and at least one year of experience; or a doctorate and some work experience. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, or vice versa. Pet. 6–7 (citation omitted). Patent Owner does not offer a definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s reasoning in support of the proposed modification of Grube is insufficient. Even if we assume that one of ordinary skill in the could apply Grube’s modulation techniques to a broadband coaxial network (as required by independent claims 29 and 34), Petitioner does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would do so. Petitioner does not identify any benefits that would be achieved by the 7 Person of ordinary skill in the art. proposed modification. Pet. 12. Dr. Williams’ testimony does not cure these deficiencies in Petitioner’s reasoning as it simply repeats the assertions in the Petition without further elaboration. Cf. Pet. 11–13, with Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–56. Further, even if we assume that Grube is analogous art, a reference discussing subject matter that qualifies it to be within the scope of available prior art does not necessarily also establish that one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to make the modifications required to meet the limitations set forth in the claim. See Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 at 10 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2018) (informative) (citing Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 701 F. App'x 971, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (“a broad characterization of [a reference] as . . . falling within the same alleged field . . . without more, is not enough for [Petitioner] to meet its burden of presenting a sufficient rationale to support an obviousness conclusion”)). Petitioner’s reasoning seems to say no more than that one of ordinary skill in the art could have made the proposed modification because Grube is within the scope of available prior art.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“In response to Petitioner’s allegation “that because Grube uses DMT transmitters and receivers, a POSITA would be motivated to add coaxial cable to Grube’s system,” Patent Owner contends “that ‘DMT transmission schemes’ may generally be used in coaxial cable systems has no bearing on whether Grube’s specific teachings are appropriate for coaxial cable.” Prelim. Resp. 35. According to Patent Owner, “Grube’s teachings of enabling one-to-many communications between a headend and buildings on a telephone line are simply not needed in a cable system, which long ago addressed one-to-many communications between a cable operator and cable modems.” Id. (citing id. at 34–38; Ex. 2003 ¶ 100). In addition, Patent Owner contends that the fact “that two references may have some technological overlap does not substitute for a motivation to combine.” Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (citing PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993-994 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Securus, 701 F. App’x. at 977; Johns Manville, IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 at 10-11, 16-17 (Oct. 16, 2018)). Patent Owner contends further that “[i]n the end, Petitioner has proposed combining two fundamentally different systems for no reason other than that the modification or combination would allegedly meet the claims” and that “[i]t is well-settled that obviousness is not established merely because the ‘elements of the claimed invention were independently known in the prior art.’” Id. at 36–37 (citing Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Virtek Vision Int’l ULC v. Assembly Guidance Sys., Inc., 97 F.4th 882, 887 (Fed. Cir. 2024). In other words, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s proposed combination is based on improper hindsight reasoning. See id. at 36–37. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Grube to use broadband coaxial cable network instead of a twisted-pair telephonic system for the reasons discussed above. In particular, we agree that Petitioner’s reasoning is based on improper hindsight.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,631,450
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.