• Innolux Corporation v. Phenix Longhorn LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00044 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition violated Rule 42.104(b)(3) and did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5, and 6 were unpatentable as obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not identified corresponding structure for performing the recited functions of “optimizing . . . gamma reference voltage levels using means for executing a predetermined algorithm according to a predetermined criteria and data sensed by . . . at least one sensor, wherein said means for executing said predetermined algorithm is separate from [a] display to achieve [a] desired gamma curve” as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Because Petitioner has not provided constructions, either rebutting the presumption that “means for executing” is a means-plus-function term, or identifying corresponding structure if it is a means-plus-function term, Petitioner has violated Rule 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) “would have had at least a bachelor of science degree in physics, electrical engineering, or the equivalent thereof and three (3) years of experience in circuit design or display technologies.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). According to Petitioner “[s]uch a POSA would have had knowledge of integrated circuits, gamma correction, and storage of gamma correction voltage values within memory, and would have understood how to search available literature for relevant publications.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition for the purposes of the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 12. This assessment is consistent with the ’788 Patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not identified corresponding structure for performing the recited functions of “optimizing . . . gamma reference voltage levels using means for executing a predetermined algorithm according to a predetermined criteria and data sensed by . . . at least one sensor, wherein said means for executing said predetermined algorithm is separate from [a] display to achieve [a] desired gamma curve” as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Because Petitioner has not provided constructions, either rebutting the presumption that “means for executing” is a means-plus-function term, or identifying corresponding structure if it is a means-plus-function term, Petitioner has violated Rule 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “and 5 recites “means for executing.” Ex. 1001, 7:36–40, 8:35–37. The use of the term “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments (Prelim. Resp. 36–39), the Petition does not address the presumption and, more specifically, the Petition does not provide any argument or evidence as to why the presumption is rebutted. Furthermore, even if we were to consider Petitioner’s newly presented argument that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of ‘means for executing a predetermined algorithm . . . ’ connotes a general-purpose processor, which is understood as structure sufficient to perform the function” (Pet. Reply 5), such argument is not persuasive as it is not supported by evidence earlier presented in the Petition or otherwise. Furthermore, even if the plain and ordinary meaning of means for executing a predetermined algorithm were a general-purpose processor, for a computer implemented means-plus-function term the corresponding structure must be the specific algorithm implemented by the processor as argued by Petitioner. Pet. Reply 6.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,557,788
• 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
• 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
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Longitude Licensing Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01123 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–4 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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 decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’233 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for” a person of ordinary skill. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 17). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 6. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and which is supported by expert testimony. 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 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Specifically, the Specification of the ’233 patent states: In this manner, the silicon pillars 5 do not necessarily surround the contact plug 31 in ′-shape and it is satisfactory if the silicon pillars 5 are uniformly arranged with respect to the metal contact plug 31, i.e. the maximum interval between the metal contact plug 31 and the silicon pillar 5 is twice or less the minimum interval between the metal contact plug 31 and the silicon pillar 5.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Endoh and Hwang rests on Endoh’s expression of a need to connect common source diffused layer 9 to a common source line above the top of the semiconductor pillars, and because Petitioner has presented no such evidence of a need in Endoh, Petitioner provides no reason to combine Endoh and Hwang to arrive at claim limitation 1.5. Id. at 17–18. We agree with Patent Owner. Endoh does not appear to teach a position of a common source line CSL and, thus, does not express a need for a means, such as a vertical contact plug, to connect common source diffused layer 9 to a common source line CSL above the top of pillar-shaped silicon layer 2. Dr. Lee’s testimony largely repeats the arguments in the Petition and, thus, does not provide any additional persuasive evidence from which we might conclude that Endoh’s device has a common source line CSL above pillar-shaped silicon layer 2, or any evidence that placement of a common source line CSL above pillar-shaped silicon layer 2 would have been obvious. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–68, 97–100, 103–105. Thus, we are not persuaded that” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,379,233
• 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
• Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00590 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–21, 37, and 38 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “16, 5:11–14) describes the hypertext nodes as including the predetermined times or predetermined intervals (what Petitioner argues is the duration). As Patent Owner argues, “even if these ‘predetermined times’ or ‘predetermined intervals’ could be considered relevant default duration parameters, the Petition fails to prove that they would be included within Shimizu’s hypertext nodes—i.e., the putative claimed ‘nodes’ —as the governing claim construction expressly requires.” Prelim. Resp. 45; see also id. at 58–59 (“[T]he passages relied on do not provide any specifics as to how duration information would be implemented. Instead, they are merely speculative and aspirational statements, postulating only about what is ‘possible.’ . . . [I]t is not sufficient for Shimizu to simply teach a time interval between nodes. Rather, . . . the node itself must ‘include . . . the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.’ The Petition fails to provide any argument or evidence demonstrating that the described predetermined intervals are included in Shimizu’s nodes.” (quoting Ex. 1023, 16 (emphasis Patent Owner’s))).” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web,” and “could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–18).” slip op. at 9

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The Microsoft court provided reasoned constructions, which Patent Owner contends that we should adopt. Ex. 1023. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term Commission, that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). Petitioner does not allege any error in the Microsoft court’s decision or provide any alternative constructions. We adopt the Microsoft court’s constructions of “show structure of nodes” and “nodes” for purposes of this Decision. Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other 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) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “16, 5:11–14) describes the hypertext nodes as including the predetermined times or predetermined intervals (what Petitioner argues is the duration). As Patent Owner argues, “even if these ‘predetermined times’ or ‘predetermined intervals’ could be considered relevant default duration parameters, the Petition fails to prove that they would be included within Shimizu’s hypertext nodes—i.e., the putative claimed ‘nodes’ —as the governing claim construction expressly requires.” Prelim. Resp. 45; see also id. at 58–59 (“[T]he passages relied on do not provide any specifics as to how duration information would be implemented. Instead, they are merely speculative and aspirational statements, postulating only about what is ‘possible.’ . . . [I]t is not sufficient for Shimizu to simply teach a time interval between nodes. Rather, . . . the node itself must ‘include . . . the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.’ The Petition fails to provide any argument or evidence demonstrating that the described predetermined intervals are included in Shimizu’s nodes.” (quoting Ex. 1023, 16 (emphasis Patent Owner’s))).” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,155,451
• Netflix, Inc. v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00081 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Netflix had not shown a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 37, or 38 unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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 decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’451 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not see a substantial difference between the parties’ proposals. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by 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). However, our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “we consider whether that construction was intended to encompass varying durations during the creating step or the displaying step. In its opinion, the Microsoft court observed that the defendants in that case argued that “before created,” and that “the ‘duration information’ is a parameter that the user can then interact with in order to vary the display of each resource.” Ex. 1014, 22. Patent Owner, the court continued, argued that “all that is required is for the user to maintain control over the actual presentation of the resource during the ‘displaying’ step, and that no duration information need be provided during the ‘creating a show structure of nodes’ step.” Id. at 22–23. The Microsoft court “agree[d] with [Patent Owner] that the user should be able to vary the duration of the content during show structure playback. This is the ‘interactive’ component of the claim.” Id. at 23; see also Prelim. Resp. 29 (arguing that this reasoning supports Patent Owner’s position that “the claim language expressly requires that the end user be able to ‘vary said duration’ for how long resource content currently ‘is being displayed’ to the user in ‘accordance with said show structure’ to which the resource belongs”). Here, the Microsoft court expressly states that the duration is varied during show structure playback, which is a clear reference to claim 1’s step of “displaying a content corresponding to each of said resources automatically in accordance with said show structure.” The Microsoft court “also finds that some duration information must be provided when the show structure of nodes is created,” that “‘parameter’ is a helpful concept for construction,” and that “the ‘duration information’ may be understood to be synonymous with a ‘parameter,’ as that timing information is the variable that will specify how long a particular content will be displayed.” Ex. 1014, 23. Thus, the Microsoft court construed claim 1 to require providing a variable duration parameter in the creating” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther

    “As noted above, the Microsoft court construed “interactively variable duration information” to mean “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1014, 22. The construction itself suggests that the duration information is varied during display, because it is in the context of resources being displayed sequentially and “the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” As to Escobar, Petitioner contends that “[w]hen playing decision lists/timelines in the authoring tool using Button 174 (invoking subroutine E), the user is the viewer of the content.” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:40–45). Thus, Petitioner appears to contend that, during the process of creating a show structure, the creator is a viewer if the creator can view the edited content corresponding to a node as the show structure is being created. Here, Petitioner would satisfy the “viewer” aspect of the Microsoft court’s construction by pointing to a creator viewing a piece of the show structure during the creating step, although Escobar does not teach that the creator can vary the duration of content while viewing it or that durations can be varied while a show structure (as opposed to a node being created) is being displayed in the displaying step, as discussed in more detail below.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,155,451
• Sercomm Corp. v. Atlas Global Technologies, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01519 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–19 because Petitioner did not show Chun was prior art, defeating both proposed obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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). Petitioner’s burden includes demonstrating that the evidence on which it relies constitutes prior art to the subject patent” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “We find the above-noted arguments persuasive. They account for what is actually set forth in the Korean provisionals, are supported by the testimony of Dr. Psounis, and are unaddressed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the alleged invention would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and either a master’s degree in one of these fields of study or a minimum of two years of experience working in the wireless communications industry. An individual with an advanced degree in a relevant field would require less experience in the design of wireless communication systems and methods.” slip op. at 6

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

    “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) (2020); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party offers any specific construction for any claim term. See Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 11. For purposes of this Decision on Institution, we have given all claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning and determine that it is not necessary to make that meaning explicit for any term.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,912,513

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.