• Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00653 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was 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) (2024). 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 patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications 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 ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’504 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12

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

    “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 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)). The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 72); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1002 ¶ 47. As reflected above, Dr. Wooley’s testimony as to element [1.2] does not even assert that Cardamone discloses a tank, let alone one or more sensors disposed at a tank as recited in element [1.2]. Thus, Dr. Wooley’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s argument on this issue.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,726,504
• Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00652 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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) (2024). 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 patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications 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 ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’403 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 73); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses element [1.2] because the evidence cited does not disclose a “first computer system being configured to provide remote control of the first pump or first valve” (i.e., a fluid-handling device). Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but Petitioner has not identified any disclosure of the capability to remotely control fluid-handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, Kahn’s disclosures that Petitioner relies on for allegedly teaching remote control are deficient. We discuss each. First, Petitioner points to the following, “[f]or instance, as illustrated in FIG. 1C, a fluid control device such as a valve 15A is located on the input side of a sen[s]or unit 110.” Ex. 1005, 8:19–21, cited in Pet. 13. This portion of Kahn, however, does not disclose remote control. Second, Petitioner cites to the following: Finally, or in addition to, 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. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:62–67). We agree with Patent Owner that this portion of Kahn teaches on-site alerts and local control of the fluid-handling device. See Prelim. Resp. 7. This portion of Kahn does not disclose remote control.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,294,403
• Tanklogix, LLC v. SiteproInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,488,871
• Tableau Software, LLC v. Icharts LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01389 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–4 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of establishing unpatentability under any asserted obviousness 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 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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 explained below, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’000 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We construe a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party proposes construing any claim term. Pet. 6; Prelim. Resp. 36. Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions of 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 7

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “3 The parties do not dispute that a skilled artisan “would have had a B.S. degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent experience relating to computing, as well as two to three additional years of academic or industry experience related to web application development and data visualization services.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 85); Prelim. Resp. 35– 36. 4 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “connotes interactivity, and does not explain why a “Data Animation Effect” would be interactive.6 These aspects of Figure 53 do not appear to show interactivity. Thus, the issue is whether selecting a choice other than “Hide” for “Scroll buttons” in box 710 of Figure 53 adds to chart 840, once published, a feature that allows a user to interact with that chart via scrolling, or whether “Scroll buttons” refers to some other feature of the configuration process (such as the scroll buttons shown in Figure 53 for scrolling through the various charts in the layout). Both experts provide conclusory testimony stating how they view Figure 53. Ex. 1003 ¶ 181 (“For example, Figure 53 of Rostoker shows the ‘Configure Chart View’ toolbar, which includes multiple ‘interactive’ features, such as making the chart ‘Selectable’ (suggesting interactivity using an input device such as a mouse), including ‘Scroll buttons’ to scroll the chart, and adding ‘Data Animation[s].’”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 141 (“Schmandt relies on the ‘Configure Chart View’ toolbar of FIG. 53 of Rostoker, but he is confusing the configuration step 330 of Rostoker with the end result.”). Petitioner invites us to speculate as to the behavior of features that are depicted in Figure 53 but otherwise are not described in any meaningful detail by Rostoker. We conclude that this is insufficient to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,520,000
• Tableau Software, LLC v. Icharts LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01388 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–18 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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 explained below, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’595 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We construe a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner. At most, Jou teaches that it was known to interact with charts in a Windows environment or a browser window. Ex. 1007 ¶ 34. But Rostoker already teaches that a user could interact with a chart, via a graphical user interface in a web browser, while configuring the chart. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67–75. Petitioner does not explain persuasively why a skilled artisan, per the teachings of Jou, would have made Rostoker’s published charts interactive. Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that a skilled artisan “would have been motivated to incorporate Jou’s additional ‘interactive’ features into Rostoker’s system to enable users to better visualize and explore business data,” is not supported by his citations to Jou, at least as to whether a skilled artisan would have modified Rostoker’s published charts. Ex. 1003 ¶ 259 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 8, 9). Petitioner’s argument that Flash and Java could enable interactive features, at most, show that a skilled artisan could have implemented interactive features with Rostoker’s a reason why a skilled artisan would have made these modifications. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))). Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner is likely to show that a skilled artisan would have incorporated Jou’s interactive features into Rostoker to make Rostoker’s published charts interactive.” slip op. at 35

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “client is required for display and usage of an existing QlikView document (.qvw file). While the QlikView Server is responsible for opening, hosting, and calculating the document, the clients are required for user interaction and presenting the document and its objects.” Ex. 1009, 123. Petitioner points to no persuasive evidence that a Java or AJAX object or client executing at a web browser is a website separate from the server that serves the object or client. Mr. Schmandt makes conclusory statements to that effect, but does not state the basis for his testimony. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 338–339. Thus, Mr. Schmandt’s testimony on this point is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (“Dr. Jones does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statement. Thus, the cited declaration testimony is conclusory and support, and is entitled to little weight.”).” slip op. at 44

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,712,595
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01248 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’071 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 12

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

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

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

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

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,814,071
• PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd. v. Flip Phone Games Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00133 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.

  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 [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] 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) (2023).” slip op. at 2

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

    “For the purposes of this Decision, 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))). To the extent necessary, we address the parties’ implicit claim constructions in the context of the arguments on the merits of the Petition.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “an undergraduate degree in game design, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience working with computer gaming systems or software application development,” and that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education or vice versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–72). Petitioner’s recitation of the level of ordinary is consistent with the invention disclosed in the ’089 patent. It is also not disputed by Patent Owner at this time. See Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least” which we change to “about.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “Figure 3 above is an example of the embodiment of Ho showing a wings button, a car, and a hamburger monster in the foreground. Ex. 1004, 5:1–5, Fig. 3. Ho describes how the various interactive information elements are used for game play. See id. at 5:11–38. For example, hamburger monster 56 may be engaged when character 52 fights and successfully slays the hamburger monster, car 58 may be engaged when character 52 enters the car, and “wings” button 54 may be engaged (for example when character 52 wishes to fly) by clicking on icon 54 using a pointer, or by using an enclosure moving between different icons to highlight icon 54 to engage the icon. Id. Because Petitioner has not shown persuasive evidence that a user would not have expected those objects to be ones that the user could interact with, Petitioner has not shown them to be background objects. Petitioner also argues that Ho teaches that activating the interactive information elements “does not disrupt gameplay” and is therefore “outside the primary focus of game play.” Pet. 31–32 (quoting 5:36–38). We do not find that argument persuasive for two reasons. First, we do not see how the fact that activating an element without disrupting game play means the element is in the background. Petitioner and its expert simply make a statement without any explanation. See id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 122. Such conclusory statements are not persuasive. Second, the language in Ho Petitioner relies on is not about the interactive information element, which Petitioner maps to the hotspot. Instead, Ho describes a sub-screen that appears after the user interacts with one of the interactive information elements, namely when the user slays the hamburger monster: “Similarly, making the character 52 slay the hamburger monster 56 may generate a sub-screen showing an advertisement of a chain of fast food restaurants. The sub-screen may also be overlain on the game environment and may not be disruptive to gameplay.” Ex. 1004, 5:35–38. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how a nondisruptive sub-screen that appears after an interaction with an object makes the object a background object.” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,688,089
• Uv Engineering Solutions LLC v. Trojan Technologies Group UlcInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,167,654
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. / Beijing Boe Display Technology Co. et al. v. Element Capital Commercial Company Pte. LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00696 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claim 1 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any asserted Inukai-based ground rendered it unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) . The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner proposes that no formal claim constructions are necessary in this proceeding. Pet. 18. Patent Owner agrees. Prelim. Resp. 4. We determine that it is not necessary to construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374 (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 11

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a related field.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27); Prelim. Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–23). The parties, however, disagree about the work experience one of ordinary skill would have had. Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill would have had “at 1 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design and manufacturing.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). Patent Owner contends that one of ordinary skill would have had “at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of display device technology.” Prelim. Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 21–23). Both parties agree that “[a]dditional education can remedy lack of work experience and vice versa.” Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 5. We note that the ’760 patent and challenged claim concern both display device technology and integrated circuit design for display devices. The ’760 patent and challenged claim do not appear to concern integrated circuit manufacturing processes. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a related field and at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design for display devices. However our decision in this proceeding would not change if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “sufficiently show that Inukai 576 discloses a wiring portion that “crosses” a control line. As noted above, Petitioner acknowledges that the right protrusion’s “full outline is not explicitly shown,” but contends that one of ordinary skill “would have understood or found obvious that the protrusion would have been the same length as the protrusion on the right, due to the ‘endcap rule.’” Pet. 51. However, based on the present record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to provide sufficient support that the “endcap rule” is universally applied. In this regard, we find reasonable Dr. Silzars’s testimony that the “endcap rule” is, “at best, a design generalization which may be used in some applications for semiconductor manufacturing, heavily dependent on what materials are used, what the purpose of the semiconductor [is] and especially the manufacturing process.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 60. Petitioner relies on the Borodovsky patent, but Borodovsky merely describes the general concept that an endcap of a transistor gate may extend some minimum distance beyond an active region so as to ensure that any rounding of the endcap does not occur over the active region. Ex. 1010, 4:21–33; Ex. 2001 ¶ 63; Pet. 52–53. Borodovsky, however, does not suggest how the rule would have been applied to Inukai 576. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 63. Petitioner also does not point to anything in Borodovsky that states that the “endcap rule” requires gate electrodes of the same size or length. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. Borodovsky’s design rule merely requires that the endcap extends at least a minimum length, not an exact length, beyond the active region, and states that “other size up amounts may be used.” Ex. 1010, 9:42–46; Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. Thus, assuming Inukai 576’s protrusions are of different length, as pictured, Petitioner’s evidence does not show persuasively that the shorter protrusion would violate the “endcap rule” merely because it is shorter than the other protrusion. We note that Dr. Liu testifies that one of ordinary skill would “have known that in order to maintain a consistent current voltage characteristic for the double-gate transistors, the two channel portions of the double-gate structure would be made as uniformly identical as possible.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 114. Dr. Liu, however, does not provide any evidence or citation for this statement. Id. Dr. Liu also states that “[t]he endcap rule applies to all gates fabricated in the transistor,” so one of ordinary skill “would have understood that the two gates over transistor 107 have equal length,” and thus “the two protrusions would extend equal distance beyond the semiconductor layer.” Id. Again, however, Dr. Liu does not explain why the “endcap rule” would require or suggest this outcome, particularly because the description of the “endcap rule” merely requires that gates have a certain minimum length beyond the semiconductor layer they intersect, not that the gates be of equal length. Id.” slip op. at 35

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,525,760
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. / Beijing Boe Display Technology Co. et al. v. Element Capital Commercial Company Pte. LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00605 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 7, 9, 14, and 15 would have been obvious over Masuda and Inoue.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review based on the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “show a reasonable likelihood that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Inoue and Masuda as Petitioner proposes, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. First, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s motivation to combine is deficient because it fails to sufficiently account for the differences between the active matrix system of Inoue and the passive matrix system of Masuda. Patent Owner introduces testimony from Dr. Silzars that passive and active matrix displays “differ in their structure and functions”” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artDecided for patent owner

    “Second, Patent Owner argues that Masuda is not analogous art because Masuda and the claimed invention of the ’736 patent are directed towards fundamentally different types of displays. Prelim. Resp. 30–44. Patent Owner asserts that “Masuda is directed to the field of endeavor of passive matrix displays utilizing field emission display technology.” Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 1–2, 34, 42; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 38, 58). According to Patent Owner, “the problem of visual interference caused by horizontal stripes or vertical stripes that is described in Masuda” is “inherent in passive matrix displays due to their low pixel density causing poor display resolution.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 73). This low pixel density, Patent Owner contends, “is related to the fact that, in passive matrix displays, the addition of more rows/columns of pixels means that there is less time to stimulate the pixels because passive matrix displays have no mechanism for storing an image in a row while other rows are being written,” causing the maximum resolution to be “significantly limited.” Id. (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 73). “In contrast,” Patent Owner argues, “active matrix displays include a mechanism for storing an image in a row while other rows are being written, and therefore achieve much greater resolution than passive matrix displays, which avoids the problem mentioned in Masuda.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 73– 74). In contrast to Masuda, Patent Owner argues that the field of endeavor of remaining challenged claims 7 and 9 is “an active matrix display,” and the field of endeavor of remaining challenged claims 14 and15 is “an OLED display.” Prelim. Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 58). Specifically, Patent Owner argues that claim 7 (and claim 9, which depends from claim 7) includes the feature of “the first and second effective optical regions having respective electronic circuits to drive the electro-optical elements provided in the first and second optical regions,” which specifies that the claim includes electronic circuits that are in element forming regions and drive electro optical elements, which is a characteristics of active matrix displays. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 59–60; Ex. 1001, 5:29–35, 6:1–4). Claim 14, according to Patent Owner, includes the feature of “each of the first electrooptical elements and the second electro-optical elements being an electroluminescent element” which indicates that claim 14 (and claim 15 which depends from it) “is directed towards the field of endeavor of an OLED display.” Id. (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 62). Additionally, Patent Owner argues, the general structure and method of operation of passive matrix displays and active matrix displays are substantially different. Id. at 39–42. Furthermore, according to Patent Owner, Masuda is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Prelim. Resp. 42. Patent Owner asserts that “Masuda is directed to the problem of visual interference caused by horizontal stripes or vertical stripes due to differences in luminosity between rows or differences in luminosity between columns,” which is “a problem that occurs specifically in passive matrix displays due to their low pixel density causing poor display resolution.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 21; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 71, 73). In contrast, Patent Owner argues, “the ’736 patent is directed towards the problem of how to reduce image distortions and color irregularities caused by directional viewing variations,” which occur in “active matrix displays in which pixel[] circuits have different shapes and/or pitches in the column and row directions.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:11–34; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 69, 71). Patent Owner further contends that “the problem related to the interference effects of horizontal and vertical stripes of Masuda does not exist in embodiments of the ’736 patent” because “active matrix displays included a mechanism for storing an image in a row while other rows are being written and achieved much greater resolution than passive matrix displays, which avoids the problem mentioned in Masuda.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 73– 74).” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In light of this testimony from Dr. Silzars, Petitioner fails to present sufficient evidence at this stage of the proceeding that of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the proposed combination. Petitioner introduces testimony from Dr. Liu stating that one of ordinary skill “would have understood that Masuda’s specific checkerboard pixel pattern could be useful for many different types of displays,” and that the problem Masuda addresses (difference in luminosity by having more of one color element than another) “is independent of the particular technology used to implement those color elements.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 74; see id. ¶ 83. Dr. Liu also relies on the Kwon patent that uses a similar arrangement in a “plasma display device.” Id. ¶ 75. Dr. Liu further testifies that, because “Inoue does not restrict how color forming pixels must be laid out,” one of ordinary skill implementing Inoue “would have been motivated to look for complementary techniques to further reduce brightness variation,” such as the one disclosed in Masuda. Id. ¶ 79; see id. ¶ 81. Dr. Liu, however, fails to present sufficient testimony that the combined system would have effectively reduced Inoue’s luminosity differences, which are described as being due to variations of threshold voltages of the pixel unit drive transistors rather than the brightness variations resulting from differences in pixel colors which Masuda identifies. As noted above, Patent Owner introduces detailed evidence from Dr. Silzars explaining the many technical differences between passive and active matrix display devices, and why Masuda’s solution would not have been applicable to Inoue. Petitioner does not introduce contrary evidence on this point. Additionally, the fact that the Kwon reference discloses the use of a similar checkerboard pixel pattern in a plasma device does not show that such a pattern would have been advantageous in an active matrix device, or how one of ordinary skill would have implemented such an arrangement in Inoue’s system. For similar reasons, we also agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Silzars that Petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Inoue’s active matrix display with the Masuda’s solution for a passive matrix device.” slip op. at 31

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,259,736

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.