- Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2023-01442 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under either anticipation ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. In addition, for the reasons stated on the merits of the Petition, we do not reach the question of whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We, therefore, deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art “would have been an individual who, as of July 18, 2002, the filing date of the ’667 Patent, had either: (1) a Bachelor’s Degree or higher in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and at least one year of related practical experience; or (2) at least four years of practical experience in data management.” Pet. 9 (citing Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not provide a description of the person of ordinary skill or dispute Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner “gives the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification and prosecution history as would have been read by a [person of ordinary skill].” Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not comment on claim construction. We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We do not see the need to construe claim terms to resolve the issues in dispute. E. Description of the Prior Art References” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other
“The Federal Circuit addressed the legal standard for anticipation in Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016): “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), a prior art reference will anticipate if it ‘disclose[s] each and every element of the claimed invention . . . arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.’” 815 F.3d at 1341 (citation omitted) (footnote omitted). C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,020,667 - PTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01201 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, or 5 obvious over either asserted reference combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). 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). Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record before us, we conclude Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of any challenged claim of the RE ’117 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“We adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except that we delete the qualifier “at least,” which renders the statement vague by rendering the scope of ordinary skill unbounded at the top. This level of ordinary skill appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).9 C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“1. “display panel” According to Petitioner, “display panel” means “a flat type screen on which images are displayed, such as a Liquid Crystal Display or Plasma Display Panel.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner improperly limits “display panel” to only a “screen” on which images are displayed. Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner states, however, that “construction of this term does not impact the issues in this proceeding.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that “display panel” includes Liquid Crystal Display and Plasma Display Panel. Therefore, it is not necessary to construe “display panel” for purposes of this decision. “circuit board mounting part” 2. Petitioner proposes a construction for “circuit board mounting part” which appears in each of claims 1, 2, and 5. Pet. 19–25. Our decision, however, does not depend on any construction of the term “circuit board mounting part.” Thus, it is not necessary to construe this term.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“disclosed in Figure 1, especially since “the text of the ’117 patent does not limit the entry/exit of the cooling paths.” Prelim. Reply 2. However, given that the goal of the RE ’117 patent is to avoid inter-heating by providing separate cooling fluid paths, as discussed above, it is not consistent with the Specification to have mixing of the two cooling fluid paths within the panel display device. We are not reading an extraneous limitation from the Specification into the claim. Rather, we are interpreting the limitation “separated from each other” in light of the Specification, which is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham - Uv Engineering Solutions LLC v. Trojan Technologies Group UlcInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 11, 2023 · IPR2023-01015 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5 and 8–24 were unpatentable over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2022).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The primary dispute between the parties is whether the person having ordinary skill in the art works with lamps generally (Petitioner) or works with ultraviolet lamps for fluid treatment systems (Patent Owner). Although the specification of the ’654 patent focuses on ultraviolet lamps for fluid treatment systems (see Ex. 1001, 1:24–2:29), the claims of the patent are not so limited. Rather, the claims broadly claim “lamps” without reciting any field of use. See id. at 6:2–8:24. Because the claims are not limited to ultraviolet lamps or fluid treatment centers, Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill is more consistent with the claims. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed description of the person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because construction of the disputed claim limitation is not necessary to resolve the controversy, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have “modif[ied] the terminal pins 126, 128, 130, and 132 of Ellner to be angled relative to the longitudinal axis as shown in Titchener so as to create a reliable connection between cables as disclosed in Titchener.” Pet. 12. Petitioner further argues that “[s]uch a modification would be a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., angled connectors 5a and 5b of Titchener) for another (i.e., non-angled terminal pins 126, 128, 130, and 132 of Ellner) to obtain predictable results.” Id. at 12–13. According to Petitioner, the combination of the teachings of Ellner and Titchener result in a lamp in which “each of the first elongate electrical connector (i.e., terminal pin 126, 128 modified to be angled as shown in Titchener) and the second elongate connector (i.e., terminal pin 130, 132 modified to be angled as shown in Titchener) configured to form an oblique angle with respect to the longitudinal axis.” Id. at 13.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,167,654 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00694 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 23, 29, or 30 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(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, deny the Petition and do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“The two proposals are materially similar in the education requirement, but differ marginally in professional experience required (three versus five years). See supra. While we are persuaded, on the present record, that both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals are consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’330 patent and the prior art of record, on balance, Petitioner’s proposal is a better reflection of the level of skill in the prior art, and we, therefore, adopt it for this decision. Our decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Having considered the positions of the parties, we find that for the purpose of this decision, we do not need to construe this term to resolve a dispute.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANot reached
“In light of the analysis of the patentability of the claims that follows, and having considered the positions of the parties, we find that for the dispute. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803, supra. C. Other Terms We determine there are no other claim terms that need to be construed for this decision.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,010,330 - Box, Inc. / Dropbox, Inc. v. Topia Technology, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 10, 2023 · IPR2023-00431 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both §103 grounds because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims required priority assignment and comparison.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. For the reasons set forth below, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1–4, 8–11, and 13–16 of the ’787 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“bachelor’s degree in computer science (or a similar degree) with two years of work experience in developing software, including at least some experience with storage, synchronization, and human-computer interaction technologies.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 17, 21). Patent Owner does not 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’787 patent claims priority, through a continuation application, to a provisional application filed before March 16, 2013, and neither party has argued that the provisions of the AIA apply at this time, we apply the pre-AIA versions of the statutory bases for unpatentability. See Ex. 1007, codes (60), (63). 3 U.S. Publication No. 2007/0174246 A1, published July 26, 2007 (Ex. 1016). 4 U.S. Publication No. 2005/0091289 A1, published April 28, 2005 (Ex. 1020). 5 U.S. Publication No. 2006/0190506 A1, published April 24, 2006 (Ex. 1019). 6 U.S. Patent No. 7,035,847 B2, filed March 15, 2002 (Ex. 1025). 7 U.S. Publication No. 2005/0120082 A1, published June 2, 2005 (Ex. 1026). proposed definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this juncture, we determine that the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for an ordinarily skilled artisan are consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and in the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Neither party requests that we expressly construe any claim term. Pet. 6; see generally, Prelim. Resp. At this juncture, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any claim term for this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find that the Petition presents sufficient reasoning to support why a person of skill in the art would modify Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm in view of Shappell’s and Rao’s teachings. Shappell and Rao simply teach that metadata is sent first and content or raw data is sent second. Petitioner contends that because the metadata is known to usually contain less data than a file and the updated version is newer, Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm should be reconfigured to assign greater priority to the metadata and lower priority to the files. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1028 ¶ 177. Petitioner asserts that Sigurdsson motivates the modification because of the “natural harmony” of Sigurdsson’s algorithm to prioritizing metadata. Pet. 23; Ex. 1028 ¶ 177. There is no explanation provided in the Petition, however, as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would opt to modify Sigurdsson to assign and compare priorities by reconfiguring the priority algorithm of Sigurdsson when there is the simpler way of using software to simply send metadata first and content second as taught in Shappell/Rao. Absent explanation in the Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm to assign and compare priorities rather than employing the simpler method taught in Shappell/Rao of just sending metadata first, the Petition lacks rational underpinning.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,642,787 - Box, Inc. And Dropbox, Inc. v. Topia Technology, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00430 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because neither asserted obviousness combination showed a reasonable likelihood of establishing the claims’ unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “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). Having considered the arguments and the associated evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner believes that we presently need not construe any claim language expressly. Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not argue that we need to construe any claim language expressly. See generally Prelim. Resp; Prelim. Sur-Reply. Further, we do not see the need to expressly construe any claim language. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly 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) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner contends: “[T]he claims’ earliest effective filing date is November 10, 2008. A POSA would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in computer science (or similar degree), and two years of work experience developing software, including at least some experience with storage, synchronization, and human-computer interaction technologies. (Balakrishnan, ¶¶15-21.)” Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp; Prelim. Sur-Reply. We find Petitioner’s position consistent with the ’622 patent and the asserted prior art, and supported by Dr. Balakrishnan’s testimony (Ex. 1028 ¶¶15–21). Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find Petitioner’s “natural harmony” rationale sufficient reasoning to establish why a person of skill in the art would have modified Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm in view of Shappell’s and Rao’s teachings to meet the claims. Shappell and Rao teach that metadata is sent first and content or raw data is sent second. They do not teach assigning priorities to the files and their associated metadata and then comparing the priorities to determine which is greater. Petitioner contends that because the metadata is known to usually contain less data than a file and the updated version is newer, Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm would have been reconfigured to assign greater priority to the metadata and lower priority to the files. Pet. 27–28. Petitioner asserts that Sigurdsson motivates the modification because of the “natural harmony” of Sigurdsson’s algorithm to prioritizing metadata. Id. at 25–26. The Petition does not explain why (beyond hindsight) a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Sigurdsson to assign and compare priorities by reconfiguring Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm when it would have been simpler always to send the metadata first and content second, as taught in Shappell and Rao. The additional arguments for combining the references presented by Petitioner (Pet. 28–32) do not overcome the failure of the references to disclose this feature of the claims.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,003,622 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01455 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 11, 13–16, 19, and 20 because Petitioner did not explain why a skilled artisan would combine Merriman’s alternative embodiments.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Regardless of whether an obviousness argument “is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference,” Petitioner must direct us to “a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In this case, Petitioner does not make the required showing. See Pet. 26–29 (relying on both of Merriman’s embodiments to meet limitation 11.b,” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition relies on two alternative embodiments for its invalidity theory without sufficient explanation of how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these embodiments. See Prelim. Resp. 7–12. Merriman discloses a real time embodiment, wherein “the advertiser’s website reports activity in real [wherein] the advertiser’s web site keeps a user log file of visitor activity and reports the user log file back to the advertisement server.” Id. at 3:38– 41. In this latter embodiment, “[r]eporting of user log files may be by email or any other file transfer technique.” Id. at 3:41–42. Merriman further discloses that the real time embodiment uses “spotlight tags placed on specific pages in the advertiser’s web site” to provide feedback of individual user’s activities in real time back to the advertising server 14, whereas the other embodiment provides “data accumulated in a user activity list” via email or a file transfer operation. Ex. 1003, 4:45–48, 4:51–54, Fig. 2. Throughout its specification, Merriman describes these embodiments as mutually exclusive alternatives. See, e.g. Ex. 1003, code (57), 3:35–43, 4:44–5:3, 5:33–54. The Petition, however, “overlooks or ignores Merriman’s clear distinctions and relies on aspects of both alternative embodiments.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Regardless of whether an obviousness argument “is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference,” Petitioner must direct us to “a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In this case, Petitioner does not make the required showing. See Pet. 26–29 (relying on both of Merriman’s embodiments to meet limitation 11.b,” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“F. Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) As we have determined that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for any claim on any ground, we need not consider whether application of the Director’s discretionary authority to deny institution in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is appropriate in this proceeding.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’582 patent “would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 7– 8. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–34). Petitioner asserts further that “[a] person could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical 1 Merriman et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,566,154 B2, issued Oct. 22, 2013 (Ex. 1004) (“Merriman”). 2 Rosenberg et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,073,241, issued June 6, 2000 (Ex. 1005) (“Rosenberg”). definition of the level of skill at this time. Prelim. Resp. 5. For purposes of this Decision, we also 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 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,244,582 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2023 · IPR2022-01454 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–9, 11–14, 16, 17, 19, or 20 obvious over the asserted prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“6. Conclusion Claims 1 and 11 In sum, after considering the arguments presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determine that, for the reasons given, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Mayadas and Katiyar teach or suggest independent claims 1 or 11. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge to claim1 or 11, or to their dependent claims 4–9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20. 7. Dependent Claims 2 and 3 Petitioner’s challenge to these dependent claims relies on Mayadas in combination with Katiyar and Rosenberg. Pet. 61–63. These claims depend from claim 1, and therefore they incorporate disputed claim element 1.c discussed supra, in Section III.E.5. Petitioner’s analysis of these claims therefore relies on Mayadas for the terms disputed by Patent Owner. Rosenberg is cited for the limited teaching of “automatically placing a tag (cookie) without any expression of the visitor’s consent to divulge information.” Pet. 62. For the reasons given in Section III.E.5, therefore, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 2 and 3.” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached
“IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owner contends that the Board should exercise its discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Pet. 21–35. Because we have determined that the Petition does not succeed on the merits, we do not need to address the issue of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art “would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 8 (citing Menascé Decl. ¶¶ 30–34). Petitioner adds that “[a] person could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not provide a description of the person of ordinary skill. For this decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner states that “[f]or the purposes of this Petition, the challenged claims are interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has argued for construction of multiple terms of the ’586 patent in parallel district court litigation, and that Petitioner “does not explain how [Petitioner’s] theories in this IPR are consistent with its district court arguments for how these terms should be construed.” Prelim. Resp. 10. But Patent Owner asserts that “[t]his Preliminary Response does not depend on any express claim constructions, and institution should be denied regardless of claim construction issues.” However, “Patent Owner reserves its right to identify terms requiring construction in the event this IPR is instituted.” Id. We determine that no claim terms are in controversy. Therefore, no other claim term needs to be construed at this stage. See Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,244,586 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2023 · IPR2022-01453 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that Mayadas and Katiyar taught or suggested claim 24’s requirement that tags and records determine a visitor previously visited the first site.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“5. Conclusion In sum, after considering the arguments presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determine that, for the reasons given, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Mayadas and Katiyar teach or suggest independent claim 24. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge to claim 24 nor its dependent claims 29, 31–33, 40, 44.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art “would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 7 (citing Menascé Decl. ¶¶ 30–34). Petitioner adds that “[a] person could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not provide a description of the person of ordinary skill. For this decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner states that “[f]or the purposes of this Petition, the challenged claims are interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has argued for construction of multiple terms of the ’639 patent in parallel district court litigation, and that Petitioner “does not explain how [Petitioner’s] theories in this IPR are consistent with its district court arguments for how these terms should be construed.” Prelim. Resp. 9. “However, at this stage and solely for the purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contend any terms of the challenged claims require express construction.” Id. at 9. “Patent Owner reserves its right to identify terms requiring construction in the event this IPR is instituted.” Id. We determine that no claim terms are in controversy. Therefore, no other claim term needs to be construed at this stage. See Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at 803. D. Description of the Prior Art References” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner’s explanation that in Mayadas, these user profiles can be created in two ways: (1) by visiting Mayadas’s system website (which Petitioner identifies as the “first website” in the claims) or (2) by visiting a different website operated by a data aggregator. Prelim. Resp. 12–13; see also Section III.D.1, supra. Patent Owner reasons that “because identical profile information can be generated by any number of data aggregator websites, the collected profile information disclosed by Mayadas cannot be used to distinguish between different sites the user may have visited to provide the profile information.” Id. at 14–15. We agree with this analysis and conclude that Mayadas’s profile information cannot be used to determine, “using the tags and electronic records” identified by Patent Owner, that a user visited the “first website,” i.e., Mayadas’s system website. As Patent Owner points out, the cookies mentioned in Mayadas are used to determine whether a user visiting a website is registered and has a profile. Ex. 1006 ¶ 35. As noted, a user profile can also result from visiting any number of aggregator sites. Thus, in contrast to the ’639 patent, the cookie does not signify that the user has visited the “first” website, only that the user is registered and a profile is available in the central repository. Prelim. Resp. 15–16. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Mayadas does not teach or suggest “computer-determining, using the tags and said electronic records, that such visitor computers have visited the first Internet site.” Id. at 12–17. Similarly, and for the same reasons we find the Mayadas does not teach or suggest delivering advertising “as a consequence” of that determination, as the claim requires. Id. at 17–19.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,822,639 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Microsoft Corporation v. Almondnet, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01260 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“D. Principles of Law A petition must show how the construed claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds it identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter 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. 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 skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations).4 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Secondary considerations may include long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, unexpected results, commercial success, copying, licensing, and praise. See id. at 17–18; Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher- Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We analyze the asserted grounds with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’582 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with designing, programming, configuration, and/or analysis/research with Internet or similar network-related processes including, for example, user/entity profile management and/or web-based targeted content delivery, or a related field.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner asserts further that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition of the level of skill at this time. Prelim. Resp. 6. For purposes of this Decision, we also 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 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that for purposes of this proceeding “no claim construction is necessary.” See Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35); Prelim. Resp. 6. At this stage of this proceeding we determine that no claim terms require express construction in order to determine whether or not to institute inter partes review because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. 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 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“system with Merriman’s ‘automatic URL redirection’ teachings fails because it is unsupported by any articulated, nonconclusory reasoning or rational underpinning.” PO Resp. 11 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reasoning in support of the proposed combination lacks rational underpinning. PO. Resp. 11. Specifically, we agree that there is no motivation to add Merriman’s URL redirection to Philyaw’s system. See PO Resp. 11. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner “fails to provide any evidence that a POSITA would have believed Philyaw to lack any important detail (or contain any other deficiency) with respect to user exits of websites” that would prompt a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to other references such as Merriman. PO Resp. 12. Rather, as discussed in detail below, Philyaw specifically addresses what happens when a user exits a vendor website. Ex. 1005, 26:39–44.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,244,582
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.