- Tanklogix, LLC v. SiteproInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00650 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–32 and 34 were unpatentable over Kahn or Kahn and Gutierrez.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’871 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 18–32 and 34 of the ’871 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The respective proposed levels of qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art are similar, with Patent Owner proposing two years of experience compared to Petitioner proposing significant experience with remotely controlling fluid-handling devices, like SCADA systems. Patent Owner also proposes more extensive experience in lieu of educational experience. While we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications to be acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’871 patent and the asserted prior art. Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the qualifications adopted.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“actuators and the remote control of fluid handling devices, including the receipt with the user-interface module of “a user command to actuate an actuator via a presented control interface” (limitation [18.7]) and “account authorized to send commands to remotely control fluid handling devices” (limitation [18.11]). We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses or teaches these limitations because the evidence does not provide support that there is remote control of fluid handling devices or the use of a user command on a control interface to send a command to a fluid handling device, for instance. Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but we do not discern that it teaches or discloses the capability to remotely control fluid handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, the Kahn disclosures that Petitioner repeatedly relies upon for allegedly teaching this control are deficient. See Ex. 1005, 10:62–67, 14:35– 15:2, 15:62–16:32; see also Pet. 12–14, 16–18. Kahn discloses that “the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance.” Ex. 1005, 10:62–67. Communication unit 112B is part of the local “sensor unit,” wherein the detection conditions determined by the sensor are communicated to remote devices by communication unit 112B. See id. at 3:31–33, 5:62–6:2, 6:27–35, 7:33–37, 13:7–12, Figs. 1A–1C. Kahn discloses that the sensor units, which include communication units 112B, can be located near shut-off valves and can communicate with distant locations. See id. at 11:1–13. There are no disclosures, however, in the above passages that there is remote control of fluid handling devices, that there is a user command on a control interface that actuates an actuator, or that there is a command sent to the facility actuators via a network connection, as required in limitations [18.5]–[18.7] and [18.9]–[18.12], respectively. Rather, the disclosure indicates that the communication unit 112B includes on-site alerts and that the local (non-remote) communication unit 112B can be interfaced with the control valve.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,488,871 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,089,946 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,814,071 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Advanced Coding Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00062 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that the prior art disclosed or taught the construed “emphasis level” limitation in any challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“which the amplitude of the high frequency components of the video signal is increased,” as required by the construction of “emphasis level.”7 See Prelim. Resp. 9 (“the Petition’s analysis of the claim limitations containing these terms against the cited references does not indicate that those references disclose these limitations under Petitioner’s proposed constructions in the District Court Action”). Thus, without Petitioner mapping the constructions to the prior art in a clear and identifiable way, we determine the Petition itself does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)– (4).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“the terms “emphasis processing” and “emphasis level.” In the Petition, Petitioner states that no constructions are necessary (Pet. 2), but after filing 2 US 5,491,514; issued Feb. 13, 1996. Ex. 1005. 3 US 5,241,387; issued Aug. 31, 1993. Ex. 1006. 4 US 6,801,665 B1; published Sept. 30, 1999. Ex. 1007. the Petition, Petitioner proposed constructions of those terms in the parties’ district-court litigation, stating that: (i) the claim term “emphasis processing” means “increasing the amplitude of the high frequency components of a video signal;” and (ii) the claim term “emphasis level” means “a value that represents the amount by which the amplitude of the high frequency components of the video signal is increased.” Ex. 2003, 10– 11. After Patent Owner relied on those constructions in its Preliminary Response (see, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 8–10),5 Petitioner requested (Ex. 3001), and the Board authorized (Paper 8), additional briefing to address how the analysis in the Petition applies under those constructions.6 Because we determine Petitioner’s showings with respect to those constructions are inadequate to carry Petitioner’s burden, our discussion below focuses primarily on those aspects of the parties’ briefing.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached
“Discretionary Denial Because we determine Petitioner has not carried its burden on the merits, we do not reach the parties’ arguments relating to discretionary denial. See Pet. 98–99; Prelim. Resp. 26–32.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,845,128 - Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00195 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Moreover, a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art in light of the subject matter of the ’244 patent, which is not limited to “aeronautical” or “aerospace” applications, claims a “stowage bin assembly” and a “hinge assembly,” and expressly refers broadly to “transportation vehicles” as typically including “overhead storage compartments,” identifying “airplanes” only as an “example” of a “transportation vehicle.” Ex. 1001, code (57), 1:12–15, 7:31–8:64. Patent Owner’s argument appears to be no more than a transparent attempt to baselessly suggest that Dr. Codd should be excluded from testifying because he lacks “the proper background or sufficient experience in the field” under Patent Owner’s unreasonable proposed level of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Dr. Dershowitz’s testimony in support of Patent Owner on the level of ordinary skill is not credible because it is inconsistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted art. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–63. For example, Dr. Dershowitz acknowledges that “[h]inges are common to many mechanical systems,” but then suggests “being familiar with hinges in general may not directly apply to the specifics of this invention” without identifying anything “specific” to the ’244 patent that requires the level of skill Dr. Dershowitz endorses. Id. ¶ 62. Dr. Dershowitz suggests “hinges used in storage solutions that are stationary have fewer requirements related to mass and volume and are not subject to the same forces and stresses that are experienced on an aircraft,” however, the challenged claims of the ’244 patent do not preclude “stationary” storage solutions, do not require anything pertaining to “mass and volume,” and are not required to withstand any “forces and stresses” experienced on an aircraft. Dr. Dershowitz’s opinion that “[d]ue to the unique environment and specialized nature of the technology at issue” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed “to have an educational background and experience that is specific to the aerospace field” is not supported by the ’244 patent or the asserted art. See id. ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 2 (Rheaume stating it “relates to a hinge assembly and, more particularly to a hinge assembly for retaining a door of a storage bin”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 2 (Savian stating it “relates generally to overhead storage bin assemblies”); Ex. 1008, 3:24–27 (Frazier stating it discloses “improvements to standard luggage and storage bins commonly found in commercial aircraft as well as other aircraft, buses, passenger vans, and other vehicles”). Dr. Dershowitz’s misapprehension of the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art is a consideration we apply in weighing his opinion of how a” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Dershowitz’s testimony in support of Patent Owner on the level of ordinary skill is not credible because it is inconsistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted art. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–63. For example, Dr. Dershowitz acknowledges that “[h]inges are common to many mechanical systems,” but then suggests “being familiar with hinges in general may not directly apply to the specifics of this invention” without identifying anything “specific” to the ’244 patent that requires the level of skill Dr. Dershowitz endorses. Id. ¶ 62. Dr. Dershowitz suggests “hinges used in storage solutions that are stationary have fewer requirements related to mass and volume and are not subject to the same forces and stresses that are experienced on an aircraft,” however, the challenged claims of the ’244 patent do not preclude “stationary” storage solutions, do not require anything pertaining to “mass and volume,” and are not required to withstand any “forces and stresses” experienced on an aircraft. Dr. Dershowitz’s opinion that “[d]ue to the unique environment and specialized nature of the technology at issue” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed “to have an educational background and experience that is specific to the aerospace field” is not supported by the ’244 patent or the asserted art. See id. ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 2 (Rheaume stating it “relates to a hinge assembly and, more particularly to a hinge assembly for retaining a door of a storage bin”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 2 (Savian stating it “relates generally to overhead storage bin assemblies”); Ex. 1008, 3:24–27 (Frazier stating it discloses “improvements to standard luggage and storage bins commonly found in commercial aircraft as well as other aircraft, buses, passenger vans, and other vehicles”). Dr. Dershowitz’s misapprehension of the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art is a consideration we apply in weighing his opinion of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the prior art at issue.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that no claim terms require construction. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–66). Patent Owner proposes an express construction for “stowage bin door” and “self-opening mechanism.” Prelim. Resp. 13– 17. We find no claim term requires an express construction in reaching our decision for the reasons below to deny institution of inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,801,244 - Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00192 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2–6 or 12–17 were unpatentable; claims 1 and 7–11 had been disclaimed.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“More importantly, Petitioner provides no sufficient reasoning and cites no support for construing the required “self-opening mechanism” to be so broad as to include a mechanism that provides “only some damping against gravity to be ‘self-opening.’” Reply 2. We agree with Patent Owner that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, a component that only opposes opening is not a “self-opening mechanism.” See Sur-reply 2. In short, as shown by Patent Owner, the plain and ordinary meaning of “self-opening mechanism” in the context of the ’315 patent, as required by claims 2–6 and 12–17, is a mechanism that acts on its own accord to open the stowage bin door. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2006). An express construction of any other claim term is not necessary for” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“9 Patent Owner also argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) to deny institution of inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 36–46. We deny institution of inter partes review for the reasons provided above and, therefore, do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,760,315 - Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01419 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 were unpatentable over either 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 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 below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable 1 This Petition is Petitioner’s second petition challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 of the ’443 patent. As noted below, Petitioner also filed a petition challenging the same claims of the ’443 patent in IPR2021-01418. Petitioner filed a Ranking and Explanation of Material Differences Between Petitions (Paper 3), where Petitioner discusses the two petitions. Because of the determination we reach on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments as to whether two petitions are necessary. likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Bajaj, however, testifies that he disagrees with Dr. Storer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill because the definition “exceeds the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 25. Nonetheless, Dr. Bajaj does not propose a specific level of ordinary skill in the art and states that, for purposes of his declaration, he applies Dr. Storer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’443 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). Therefore, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“prosecution history sheds substantial light on how the applicants understood the disputed claim language. As set forth above, in response to rejections based on Candelore-II, the applicants raised two primary arguments. First, the applicants argued that Candelore-II “does not . . . appear to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video by encrypting at least one block of data within the partially encrypted frame so that only a portion of the encoded frame is encrypted.” Ex. 1103, 250. Second, and importantly, the applicants argued that Candelore-II’s failure to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video “is highlighted by the Candelore patent’s failure to disclose DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 251 (first emphasis added). Critically, the very next sentence begins with the word instead, and states, “[i]nstead, the Candelore patent discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” Id. (emphases added). These two sentences from the applicants’ argument directly contrast the recited “offset value” language with Candelore-II’s disclosure. Specifically, the applicants sought to distinguish Candelore-II because its pointers are relative to the file. We find that by contrasting Candelore-II’s pointers, the applicants “ma[d]e clear that the invention does not include a particular feature”— pointers that are relative to the file. GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And, we also find that the applicants’ arguments constitute a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” of an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame, where the offset value is relative to the file. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although we agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never raised a distinction between offset values ‘relative to a file’ and offset values ‘relative to a frame’ at any point during prosecution,” we do not agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never said that offset values relative to a file are excluded from the scope of the claim.” Prelim. Reply 10. Rather, we find no other way to interpret the applicants’ arguments. As noted above, the applicants specifically stated that Candelore-II fails to disclose “DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame’” and then stated that “[i]nstead,” Candelore-II “discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” The applicants’ argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue here and specifically says that it is not disclosed because Candelore-II discloses something else instead.11 Accordingly, for these reasons, we find that the applicants disclaimed “pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.”” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“regarding the meaning of “an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame,” we determine that the applicants disclaimed an offset value that is relative to the file. See supra § II.A.2. On the present record, we find Patent Owner’s argument and evidence persuasive regarding Candelore-II’s disclosure. In particular, Patent Owner identifies the teachings of Candelore-II directed to its pointers, and Candelore-II’s description and Figure 3 support Patent Owner’s argument that Candelore-II’s pointers are relative to the file. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 1106 ¶ 31, Fig. 3). Additionally, Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s position that Candelore-II teaches pointers that are relative to the file. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. Further, as applied to the combination, Petitioner does not propose modifying Candelore-II’s pointers such that they are not relative to the file. See, e.g., Pet. 30–36 (discussing motivation and reasonable expectation of success), 41–53 (discussing, inter alia, limitations [1f], [1h], [1i], and [1j]). Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution of the ’443 patent, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Notoya, Matsui, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1j] and, hence, claim 1. d. Independent Claim 7 and Dependent Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16 As noted above, limitation [7j] of independent claim 7 recites the same “offset value” language as limitation [1j] and Petitioner relies on its arguments and evidence directed to limitation [1j] in its discussion of limitation [7j]. See Pet. 72–73 (limitation [7j]). For the same reasons discussed above, we find that the same deficiency regarding claim 1 applies equally to claim 7 and the claims that depend from claim 1 or claim 7— claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16. Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Notoya, Matsui, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [7j] and, via their dependency from claim 1 or claim 7, the subject matter of dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16.” slip op. at 44
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,257,443 - Facebook, Inc. v. Thaddeus GabaraInstitution deniedPTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00201 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable; the cited combinations did not teach or suggest a stationary map.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’698 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“through 14, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently7 that the map shown Figure 13b is stationary, as recited in claim 1. Petitioner does not rely upon Roussos as teaching the “stationary map” recited in claim 1 or assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kim in light of Roussos to satisfy this claim limitation. See, e.g., Pet. 27–30 (relying upon Kim); see also id. at 26 (discussing the proposed combination as including Roussos’s coordinate system). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Kim and Roussos teaches or suggests a stationary map as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). At this stage of the proceeding, the parties agree that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 28. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,836,698 - Facebook, Inc. v. Thaddeus GabaraInstitution deniedPTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00200 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied on all challenged claims because the petition did not show that Kim, alone or in combination, disclosed or suggested the required stationary map.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the following reasons, we find Patent Owner’s assertions have merit because Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing Kim discloses or suggests a background image of a stationary map, which is a necessary limitation in each of the challenged independent claims. Because this deficiency is dispositive and leads us to the conclusion that the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’545 patent, our discussion below focuses on Petitioner’s contentions regarding Kim’s disclosure of a stationary map.” slip op. at 12
- Other 314aNot reached
“V. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner contends that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Prelim. Resp. 3–12. Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s argument. See Paper 12 (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request to File Preliminary Replies to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses), 3 (noting that Petitioner requested authorization to file a preliminary reply to respond to Patent Owner’s argument regarding discretionary denial under § 314(a)). Because we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at least one claim of the ’545 patent is unpatentable, we need not reach the issue of discretionary denial pursuant to § 314(a).” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’545 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNot reached
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). At this stage of the proceeding, the parties agree that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 28. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,620,545 - Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01613 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3 and 5–15 unpatentable over Milewski, or claims 1–3, 7–9, and 12 obvious over Milewski and Heijden.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached
“The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Petitioner contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 3–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Andrews’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience in the fields of messaging systems, and wireless communication devices, or an equivalent advanced education in the field of messaging systems, including wireless communication devices. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,925,308
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.