• Apple Inc. v. DH International Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00173 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–13 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 371 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim in the ’333 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of the ’333 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. We adopt the parties’ agreed level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the description in the ’333 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “element” (limitation [1(e)]) onto a McGregor “device” placed in an RF field generated by Palmer’s reader/writer device. Pet. 28–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105), 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–127). The Petition is unclear as to which McGregor device is being referenced, e.g., the smart card of Figure 2, the wallet embodiment of Figure 4, or some combination of embodiments disclosed in McGregor and Palmer. Id. Regardless, the proposed modification of McGregor in view of Palmer, as we understand it, is based on conclusory reasoning and appears to be motivated by hindsight rather than the teachings of the applied references. Prelim. Resp. 38–40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 97–102). 7 Ground 2 challenges independent claim 11 for asserted obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle. The Petition’s reliance on Tuttle for its teaching of distinct data transmitter, data receiver, and cue receiver ports does not alter our analysis for claim 11. Pet. 55–62. POSITA would have understood that a series of instructions would be programmed into McGregor’s microprocessor to function as a switching element (pursuant to Palmer’s teachings), and as described.in the ’333 Patent. See Claim [1(b)]; see ’333 Patent, 6:9-14. Accordingly, McGregor’s microprocessor is a switching element (1) that is placed into an activated state after receiving a handshake signal (an activation cue) that establishes a communication during the handshake process and (2) that remains in an inactivated state if no reader/writer device is detected (no activation cue). Ex. 1003 ¶ 127 (emphases added). Dr. Buehrer’s citation to the ’333 patent, without explaining his mapping of limitation [1(e)] onto McGregor-Palmer beyond a general reference to 10-plus pages of limitation [1(b)] “control device” analysis, suggests hindsight reasoning. Id; see also Pet. 42 (generally referring to limitation [1(b)]). The Petition’s analysis, moreover, does not address why or how McGregor’s microprocessor would “accordingly” act as a data conveyance switching element or why a POSITA would want to program McGregor’s microprocessor to execute such a switching function in view of Palmer. We find the Petition and Dr. Buehrer’s testimony lacking in articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings sufficient to support the conclusion that limitation [1(e)] reads on the proposed McGregor-Palmer combination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 16

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

    “element” (limitation [1(e)]) onto a McGregor “device” placed in an RF field generated by Palmer’s reader/writer device. Pet. 28–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105), 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–127). The Petition is unclear as to which McGregor device is being referenced, e.g., the smart card of Figure 2, the wallet embodiment of Figure 4, or some combination of embodiments disclosed in McGregor and Palmer. Id. Regardless, the proposed modification of McGregor in view of Palmer, as we understand it, is based on conclusory reasoning and appears to be motivated by hindsight rather than the teachings of the applied references. Prelim. Resp. 38–40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 97–102). 7 Ground 2 challenges independent claim 11 for asserted obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle. The Petition’s reliance on Tuttle for its teaching of distinct data transmitter, data receiver, and cue receiver ports does not alter our analysis for claim 11. Pet. 55–62. POSITA would have understood that a series of instructions would be programmed into McGregor’s microprocessor to function as a switching element (pursuant to Palmer’s teachings), and as described.in the ’333 Patent. See Claim [1(b)]; see ’333 Patent, 6:9-14. Accordingly, McGregor’s microprocessor is a switching element (1) that is placed into an activated state after receiving a handshake signal (an activation cue) that establishes a communication during the handshake process and (2) that remains in an inactivated state if no reader/writer device is detected (no activation cue). Ex. 1003 ¶ 127 (emphases added). Dr. Buehrer’s citation to the ’333 patent, without explaining his mapping of limitation [1(e)] onto McGregor-Palmer beyond a general reference to 10-plus pages of limitation [1(b)] “control device” analysis, suggests hindsight reasoning. Id; see also Pet. 42 (generally referring to limitation [1(b)]). The Petition’s analysis, moreover, does not address why or how McGregor’s microprocessor would “accordingly” act as a data conveyance switching element or why a POSITA would want to program McGregor’s microprocessor to execute such a switching function in view of Palmer. We find the Petition and Dr. Buehrer’s testimony lacking in articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings sufficient to support the conclusion that limitation [1(e)] reads on the proposed McGregor-Palmer combination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). The Petition does assert an obviousness theory within the analysis of the “control device” limitation [1(b)]. Pet. 25–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85– 109). The Petition asserts that a “POSITA would have been motivated to implement McGregor’s device pursuant to Palmer such that the security code would be automatically transmitted when the device detects the receive the security code.” Pet. 28; see also id. at 31 (“A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Palmer’s (1) RF field detection and handshake processes and (2) Palmer’s transceiver hardware in McGregor’s device.”) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105). We find the Petition’s obviousness theory to be inherently inconsistent and non-specific with regard to the “data conveyance switching element” recited in limitation [1(e)].” slip op. at 16

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,628,333
• Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01271 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented and the evidence of record, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–21 of the ’342 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby do not institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’342 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “(3) Discussion We observe first that “[Halevy’s] first step in processing a web source is to locate the forms in the source and to extract the text corresponding to the fields in the form.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53. According to Halevy, the “web source is subsequently classified into the ontology classes.” Id. ¶ 55. Then, the “forms on the page are classified into the classes in the ontology.” Id. ¶ 57 (emphasis added). Halevy explains that this classification is used to predict what kinds of objects are in the databases queried by the form. Id. For “Schema Matching,” Halevy discloses “a mapping between the fields in the form and the SO-properties of the SO-classes[.]” Id. ¶¶ 61–62. Missing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that fields are mapped “to one another using normalized variables stored in a normalized variable data database” as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner contends that a POSITA “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with web programming and search engine systems[; m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–36) (“Patent Owner and its expert apply this definition.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner present claim construction in the Petition or Preliminary Response. Pet. 9; see generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s construction of “universal variable map” is too narrow, but does not appear to offer an alternative construction other than to state that a “universal variable map” includes “a database that links variables from different websites to each other.” See Reply 1-2 (emphasis omitted) (“PO’s arguments for why Halevy’s ‘form database’ is not a universal variable map are all premised on improperly narrowing the term’s scope by adding restrictions that are unsupported by the intrinsic record.”). In the Sur-Reply, Patent Owner reiterates that it has not proposed a construction for “universal variable map.” Sur-Reply 1 (“Patent Owner did not present any claim construction arguments regarding that term, nor does that term’s construction have any bearing on the arguments set forth in the POPR for denying the Petition.”). Based on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,262,342
• Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01272 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Google did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017 (en banc (quoting Magnum Oil)). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). A party who petitions the Board for a determination of obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art described in the Petition and applied in the Preliminary Response, which is consistent with the description in the ’626 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “While [Dr. Fox] asserts that Oldham’s external engine is the required “networked data source,” he does not identify any teaching in Oldham that there are any “field identifiers” in Oldham’s external engine. Dr. Fox then goes on to argue that “POSAs would have recognized that the SO-properties mapped to the keywords are determined ‘field identifiers of the networked data source stored in the universal variable data database’ based on the dynamic data because the SO-properties for each class are defined by the form engine and mapped to corresponding fields from various forms stored in the form database.” EX1003, ¶ 102. First, Halevy’s SO-properties obviously cannot be “field identifiers” of Oldham’s external engine, because Halevy’s SO-properties do not come from Oldham’s external engine. Rather, they are generated in Halevy’s system as part of the “database schema” of Halevy’s form database. See EX1006, [0038] (“In one embodiment of the present invention, the database describes web sources in terms of an ontology of classes and properties, which is referred to as the ‘search ontology’ (SO).”). In addition, Halevy’s SO-properties are not “field identifiers” at all. Rather, the SO-properties are simply search filters that assist Halevy’s search engine in determining a form’s degree of relevancy to the user’s keyword search query. See EX1006, [0137] (“[T]he system performs a lookup based on the structured query in the form database to identify forms of interest (step 608) and ranks these forms (step 610).”). Also I note that Dr. Fox argues elsewhere in his declaration that SO-properties are “normalized variables,” which even he recognizes are different from “field identifiers.” See, e.g., EX1003, ¶ 101 (“Halevy’s form engine determines field identifiers . . . by mapping keywords in the query to SO-properties (i.e., normalized variables) . . . .”). As described in the ’734 patent, “normalized variables” are used to create associations between field identifiers of different forms, but they are not themselves “field identifiers.” See EX1001, 15:65-16:3 (“In this way, once a site’s category is defined, the variable mapping exercise can be simplified to match which variables or identifiers match up with which normalized variable . . . .”). Thus, Dr. Fox fails to show any teaching or suggestion in the combination of Oldham and Halevy of the claim limitation “determining . . . field identifiers of the networked data source stored in the universal variable data database.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 59, 61–64 (underlining added). We adopt Dr. Malek’s testimony and reasoning above as our own.” slip op. at 25

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

    “b. Halevy’s schema-mapping search engine Although Halevy’s schema-mapping system uses a common set of SO-properties for the form fields in each SO-class, there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in Halevy to use schema-mapping for “mapping,” linking, or integrating the field identifiers (parameter names) of different forms on different websites to one another to generate deep-links. We find the Petition’s reasoning and the cited testimony of Dr. Fox on this crucial point to be conclusory. We also find the Preliminary Response to be persuasive, Dr. Malek’s testimony (Ex. 2001) to be credible, and the reasoning of both consistent with the disclosures in Halevy.” slip op. at 30

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,152,734
• Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01269 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 were unpatentable over the four asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017 (en banc) (quoting Magnum Oil). 8 The UVM Limitation is identified as [1.A] in the Petition and Preliminary Response. A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). A party who petitions the Board for a determination of obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art described in the Petition and applied in the Preliminary Response, which is consistent with the description in the ’626 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017 (en banc) (quoting Magnum Oil). 8 The UVM Limitation is identified as [1.A] in the Petition and Preliminary Response. A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). A party who petitions the Board for a determination of obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). We assess Petitioner’s evidence and argument according to the above- referenced obviousness standard. For the reasons given below, we determine Petitioner has not established that Belanger and Halevy disclose, teach, suggest or otherwise render obvious independent claim 1 of the ’626 patent. We begin with a discussion of Belanger and Halevy. slip op. at 13

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

    “Although Halevy’s schema-mapping technique maps each form field to a common set of SO-properties in each SO-class, there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in Halevy to use schema-mapping to “link” or integrate form fields (parameter names) of different forms on different websites to each other to generate deep-links. We find the Petition’s reasoning and the cited testimony of Dr. Fox on this crucial point to be conclusory. We also find the Preliminary Response to be persuasive, Dr. Malek’s testimony (Ex. 2001) to be credible, and the reasoning of both consistent with the disclosures in Halevy.” slip op. at 22

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,789,626
• Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01270 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–26 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented and the evidence of record, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–26 of the ’378 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby do not institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’378 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA or POSITA) at the time of the invention of the ’378 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with web programming and search engine systems[; m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–36) (“Patent Owner and its expert apply this definition.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “(3) Discussion We observe first that “[Halevy’s] first step in processing a web source is to locate the forms in the source and to extract the text corresponding to the fields in the form.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53. According to Halevy, the “web source is subsequently classified into the ontology classes.” Id. ¶ 55. Then, the “forms on the page are classified into the classes in the ontology.” Id. ¶ 57 (emphasis added). Halevy explains that this classification is used to predict what kinds of objects are in the databases queried by the form. Id. For “Schema Matching,” Halevy discloses “a mapping between the fields in the form and the SO-properties of the SO-classes[.]” Id. ¶¶ 61–62. Missing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that a “plurality of computer-readable field identifiers” are mapped “to one another” as required by claim 1. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Fox, testifies that “[t]he ‘SO-classes’ are identified for each form and used to map the fields in the form (i.e., “the plurality of computer-readable field identifiers”) to one another using “SOproperties,” as shown . . . in annotated Figure 3.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 39–40, 45, 49, 62, 67). Yet, those cited portions of Halevy do not support Dr. Fox’s testimony. As Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Sam Malek, explains: the language highlighted by Petitioner in Figure 3 does not actually show that “[t]he ‘SO-classes’ are . . . used to map the fields in the form . . . to one another using ‘SO-properties,’” as he contends. Id. Rather, the language in Figure 3 that Dr. Fox has highlighted merely shows that, for any given form, there is “mapping between fields” of that form and “class properties.” EX1006, Fig. 3. In other words, fields in a form are mapped to class properties. Figure 3 does not show any mapping of fields to each other, as Dr. Fox argues.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,633,378
• Google LLC v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00955 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–33 unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “1. Legal Standards “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (hereafter cited as “KSR”). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if made available in the record, which has not happened here. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 17

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “To be sure, the pixel belief values used in the Luo-250 device are based on color. The Luo-250 device determines pixel probabilities “by assigning to each pixel a belief value as belonging to the subject matter region based on color and texture features.” Id. ¶ 42. However, using probability values or binary 1s and 0s to map the probability or “belief” that a pixel or area of pixels in an image either is, or is not, a subject matter target, is not the same as designating “certain pixels as certain colors” as asserted by Petitioner. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Petition has adequately supported or explained how the Luo-250 device designates “certain pixels as certain colors.” We also are not persuaded the Petition has established that Luo-250 discloses, teaches, or suggests a device or method that “determines the color range exhibited by the pixel data groups” as recited in Limitation 1[b]. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 34–39). First, as indicated above, we are not persuaded the Petition has established that Luo-250 “designates certain pixels as certain colors,” which is foundational to Petitioner’s argument that the Luo-250 method determines a “color range exhibited by the pixel data groups.” Second, the evidence cited by Petitioner when attempting to map the quoted claim language regarding “color range” to Luo-250, refers to the designation of individual pixels as “either skin-tone or non skin-tone” in a binary belief map, not a range of colors. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 35–39). Petitioner’s argument—that “[b]y analyzing the pixels to designate each as ‘either skin-tone or non skin-tone,’ Luo-250’s device determines ‘[r]egions of skin-tone colored pixels’ in the image” (id.)—is not persuasive evidence of “determin[ing] a color range exhibited by the pixel data groups” as recited in Limitation 1[b]. The Petition does not adequately explain how Luo-250 discloses, teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious the determination of color ranges for pixel data groups in an image. We are further persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument and evidence that the Petition has not adequately explained how the Luo-250 device would “determine[] a color range” based on a determination of probability values for each pixel, rather than a range of colors. Prelim. Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 32, 34, 36, and 38). Dr. Papanikolopoulos’s Declaration testimony further supports Patent Owner’s position. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 78–81. Dr. Papanikolopoulos testifies, in particular, that Mr. Parulski asserts only “that Luo-250 considers the color of individual pixels. He does not assert that Luo-250 anywhere ‘analyzes the image data . . . and determines the color range, as claimed.’” Id. ¶ 80. We agree.” slip op. at 22

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

    “To be sure, the pixel belief values used in the Luo-250 device are based on color. The Luo-250 device determines pixel probabilities “by assigning to each pixel a belief value as belonging to the subject matter region based on color and texture features.” Id. ¶ 42. However, using probability values or binary 1s and 0s to map the probability or “belief” that a pixel or area of pixels in an image either is, or is not, a subject matter target, is not the same as designating “certain pixels as certain colors” as asserted by Petitioner. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Petition has adequately supported or explained how the Luo-250 device designates “certain pixels as certain colors.” We also are not persuaded the Petition has established that Luo-250 discloses, teaches, or suggests a device or method that “determines the color range exhibited by the pixel data groups” as recited in Limitation 1[b]. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 34–39). First, as indicated above, we are not persuaded the Petition has established that Luo-250 “designates certain pixels as certain colors,” which is foundational to Petitioner’s argument that the Luo-250 method determines a “color range exhibited by the pixel data groups.” Second, the evidence cited by Petitioner when attempting to map the quoted claim language regarding “color range” to Luo-250, refers to the designation of individual pixels as “either skin-tone or non skin-tone” in a binary belief map, not a range of colors. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 35–39). Petitioner’s argument—that “[b]y analyzing the pixels to designate each as ‘either skin-tone or non skin-tone,’ Luo-250’s device determines ‘[r]egions of skin-tone colored pixels’ in the image” (id.)—is not persuasive evidence of “determin[ing] a color range exhibited by the pixel data groups” as recited in Limitation 1[b]. The Petition does not adequately explain how Luo-250 discloses, teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious the determination of color ranges for pixel data groups in an image. We are further persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument and evidence that the Petition has not adequately explained how the Luo-250 device would “determine[] a color range” based on a determination of probability values for each pixel, rather than a range of colors. Prelim. Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 32, 34, 36, and 38). Dr. Papanikolopoulos’s Declaration testimony further supports Patent Owner’s position. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 78–81. Dr. Papanikolopoulos testifies, in particular, that Mr. Parulski asserts only “that Luo-250 considers the color of individual pixels. He does not assert that Luo-250 anywhere ‘analyzes the image data . . . and determines the color range, as claimed.’” Id. ¶ 80. We agree.” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. We determine that no express finding is necessary, on the present record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,668,365
• Databricks, Inc. v. R2 Solutions LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00659 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Pike, Pike with Chowdhuri, or Pike with Chowdhuri and MacLeod rendered claims 1–46 obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359– 60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’610 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–46 of the ’610 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner relies on conclusory reasoning grounded in hindsight to assert a POSITA would have found it obvious to include file names to identify the data in each of Pike’s input files “because it would have allowed for locating that data group in Pike’s system and understanding the data in that file.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 93).13 Petitioner then makes the leap that, by understanding the data in an input file, a MapReduce programmer would have had reason “to identify input files and write ‘application-specific’ map and reduce functions on those files.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002, 10:1–7, 11:28–47, 14:12–27; Ex. 1005 ¶ 93). The difficulty with Petitioner’s position is that neither Pike nor other cited references disclose, teach, suggest, or otherwise provide motivation to write application-specific map and reduce functions that process each input file by identifiable schema or data type, i.e., by “data group” as recited in claim 1. Pike teaches application-specific programming “to process the input data one record at a time” or “to generate its output data in the form of key/value pairs,” nothing more. Ex. 1002, 7:31–36; see Pet. 29 (citing same); Prelim. Resp. 40–41, 50–51, 56 (citing same). Petitioner’s posited file names for Pike’s input files, moreover, could not serve as the claimed “data group” mechanism to identify the data in each input file by schema (or data type) for separate map and reduce processing. Each of Pike’s 13 Linn Declaration paragraph 93 is substantially identical to Petitioner’s argument and does not add any further insight or analysis on this point. data blocks can include data from more than one input file, a portion of one input file, or an entire input file. Ex. 1002, 6:55–7:6; see also Prelim. Resp. 47 (“Pike’s ‘data blocks’ (purported ‘partitions’) can be entire ‘input files,’ parts of ‘input files,’ or parts of multiple ‘input files’”). Therefore, a file name for one input file could not uniquely identify all of the data within a given data block, which could include data from different input files. Id. We agree with Patent Owner’s reasoning and argument on this point as well. In sum, Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that a POSITA would have had reason or motivation to use input file names in Pike as “data group” identifiers, as recited in claim 1 of the ’610 patent. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (obviousness requires “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 31

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentable

    “We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s asserted motivation for tracking processed data “derived from a particular [input] file” to improve efficiency “by enabling a data set to be selectively reduced after it is mapped” (Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 119)), is speculative hindsight-based reasoning. Petitioner’s posited motivation is grounded in benefits residing in the ’610 patent, not in the prior art or knowledge of a POSITA. Prelim. Resp. 48. Petitioner’s evidence—Dr. Linn’s naked opinion that a POSITA “could” have used the identification of processed output file data as “derived from a particular file” to selectively reduce intermediate data (Ex. 1005 ¶ 119)—is unpersuasive for the reasons given above and legally insufficient. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 35

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to the patentability of any of claims 1–46 of the ’610 patent. Therefore, we deny institution of inter partes review of the challenged claims. We need not address Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) in view of our decision denying institution on the merits.” slip op. at 50

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,190,610
• Cloudera, Inc. v. R2 Solutions LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00303 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on the merits, finding that Pike and Pike with Chowdhuri, alone or with MacLeod, did not show a reasonable likelihood of rendering claims 1–46 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359– 60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’610 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–46 of the ’610 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “someone having “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or similar field, and approximately two years of industry or academic experience in a field related [to] performing data analytics and/or related data processing tasks.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67–69; In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Petitioner further asserts that work experience can substitute for formal education and additional formal education can substitute for work experience. Id. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 14.” slip op. at 14

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “13–31; Ex. 1008, 10–19); Prelim. Resp. 10 n.1, 17 (citing Pet. 10; Ex. 1007, 24– 25); see also Paper 7, 2 (Updated Mandatory Notices).10 The parties each provided proposed constructions of “data group” and related arguments to the court. Id. The district court construed “data group” as “a group of data and a mechanism for identifying data from that group (e.g., a group identifier).” Ex. 1007, 23–25. Having reviewed the district court’s construction of “data group,” and given the parties’ application of that construction here, we apply the district court’s construction of “data group” for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (claim terms “need only be construed ‘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 16

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

    “Petitioner’s argument explicitly and implicitly relies on the teachings of the ’610 patent, not Pike or some other MapReduce reference or teaching, for the proffered motivation that a “POSITA would have understood,” “recognized,” or “found it obvious to implement” Pike’s MapReduce system to include input file names as the “data group” identifiers in claim 1 of the ’610 patent. See Pet. 17–18. Petitioner relies on conclusory reasoning grounded in hindsight to assert a POSITA would have found it obvious to include file names to identify the data in each of Pike’s input files “because it would have allowed for locating that data group in Pike’s system and understanding the data in that file.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 93).14 Petitioner then makes the leap that, by understanding the data in an input file, a MapReduce programmer would have had reason “to identify input files and write ‘application-specific’ map and reduce functions on those files.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 10:1–7, 11:28–47, 14:12–27; Ex. 1005 ¶ 93). The difficulty with Petitioner’s position is that neither Pike nor other cited references disclose, teach, suggest, or otherwise provide motivation to write application-specific map and reduce functions that process each input file by identifiable schema or data type, i.e., by “data group” as recited in claim 1. Pike teaches application-specific programming “to process the input data one record at a time” or “to generate its output data in the form of key/value pairs,” nothing more. Ex. 1002, 7:31–36; see Pet. 27 (citing same); Prelim. Resp. 39–40, 49–50, 55 (citing same).” slip op. at 31

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,190,610
• L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · PGR2017-00011 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 112.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Moreover, “[a]pplicants can define . . . claim scope during prosecution,” just as they can in a patent specification. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, during prosecution of the ’419 patent, the applicant stated that “[t]he term ‘hair coloring agent’ refers to a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” Ex. 1005, 7. To define specific terms used to describe an invention, the applicant need only set out the definition “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On the present record, the definition of the term “hair coloring agent” set out in the prosecution history of the ’419 patent is sufficiently clear, deliberate, and precise to give a person of ordinary skill in the art notice that the term is used in the ’419 patent in a manner that does not include substances other than “colorant[s] or pigment[s] that [are] customarily used in hair care products,” even if those other substances might be described as “hair coloring agents” outside the context of the ’419 patent. Ex. 1005, 7. Accordingly, we should give effect to that definition. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” gives effect to the prosecution history’s definition of “hair coloring agent,” we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for purposes of the present decision. Thus, on the present record, and for purposes of the present decision, we construe “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.”” slip op. at 6

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable

    “to determine the scope of the claims. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable

    “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent.” Pet. 36–39; Prelim. Resp. 39–40. If “a hair coloring agent” encompasses bleaching agents, then the claims all require a bleaching formulation and simultaneously exclude a bleaching agent, a scope that Petitioner argues is not described in the specification of the ’419 patent. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent lack written description support. slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,498,419
• Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’Real Foods, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2016-01105 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1 and 6–11 anticipated by Neilson or claims 1 and 5–11 obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “October 6, 2014—the date the 2014 Complaint alleging infringement of the ’658 patent was served on Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 5, 11. It is undisputed, however, that Patent Owner did not own the ’658 patent at the time the 2014 Complaint was filed and served. Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 7; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 5–7. Title to the ’658 patent was transferred to Patent Owner by an assignment executed January 25, 2016. Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 9; Ex. 1030 ¶ 7, Ex. C (patent assignment). Accordingly, Patent Owner lacked standing to sue for infringement of the ’658 patent at the time the 2014 Complaint was filed and served. Paradise Creations, Inc. v. UV Sales, Inc., 315 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[I]n order to assert standing for patent infringement, the plaintiff must demonstrate that it held enforceable title to the patent at the inception of the lawsuit.”). The patent counts of the 2014 Complaint were jurisdictionally defective, and the defect could not be cured after the filing date of the complaint, e.g., by a subsequent assignment or by joining the patent title holder to the lawsuit. Alps S., LLC v. Ohio Willow Wood Co., 787 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 897 (2016) (“The party asserting patent infringement is ‘required to have legal title to the patents on the day it filed the complaint and that requirement can not be met retroactively.’”) (quoting Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC, 625 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). The Delaware district court was required to—and actually did— dismiss the patent infringement counts of the 2014 Complaint for lack of Article III standing. Ex. 1031 n.1 (Delaware district court order granting motion for voluntary dismissal: “the court lacks jurisdiction to make a judgment on the merits”); see also, Abraxis, 625 F.3d at 1367 (“[T]he action must be dismissed because [plaintiff] lacked standing on the day it filed the action.”); Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. Beatrice Cheese, Inc., 402 F.3d 1198, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[I]f the original plaintiff lacked Article III initial standing, the suit must be dismissed, and the jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by the addition of a party with standing, . . . nor by the subsequent purchase of an interest in the patent in suit.”) (citing Paradise, 315 F.3d at 1309). Thus, the allegation of infringement of the ’658 patent in the 2014 Complaint was not a proper federal pleading and did not trigger the one-year time period under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner was not served with a complaint properly alleging infringement of the ’658 patent until January 2016. The instant petition was filed in May 2016. Accordingly, the Petition is not time-barred under § 315(b).” slip op. at 9

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

    “unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 1 and 5–11 as unpatentable under § 103. Pet. 9. Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Therefore, institution of an inter partes review is denied.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner and Patent Owner offer competing constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 18–20; Prelim. Resp. 26–35. We determine that only the following claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “position.” During a mixing operation, the ’658 patent describes how the cup holder is reciprocated to move axially upward so the mixing element is in a position within the liquid-filled cup, i.e. the recited “first position,” then reciprocated downward so the mixing element is moved upward to the recited “second position” closer to the opening at the top of the cup, “to allow the blade to pass through the full contents of the cup more than one time.” Ex. 1001, 3:58–64. When the mixing element is moved upward within the cup to the second position, the weight of the splash shield must be sufficient to keep the liquid-filled cup in the cup holder. Id. at 4:3–10 (“heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the cup to overcome any upward force created by the mixing blade being moved upwardly in the cup”). The force generated by upward movement of the mixing element is not further described in the ’658 patent, although the ’658 patent provides a preferred embodiment where a splash shield weighing 5 pounds (dependent claim 5) provides sufficient downward force to perform the recited function. Id. at 4:20–23. Petitioner argues that “sufficient mass” in claim 1 should be construed in accordance with the interpretation allegedly offered by Patent Owner in the dismissed patent action: “the splash shield applies sufficient weight to the top of the cup to retain the cup in the cupholder during mixing.” Pet. 19 (no citation). Petitioner further argues that “the mass of the splash shield” limitation in claim 6 should be construed in accordance with the construction allegedly offered by Patent Owner in the dismissed patent action: “the splash shield applies sufficient weight to the top of the cup to prevent separation of the cup from the cupholder during mixing.” Id. (no citation). Patent Owner responds with a slightly different interpretation of a splash shield having a “sufficient mass”: “heavy enough to retain the vessel within the holder during relative movement of the mixing element and vessel.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:3–24; Ex. 2025 (definition of “sufficient”)). Both parties appear to agree that the ’658 patent describes the “sufficient mass” of the splash shield in functional terms as enough weight to retain the vessel or cup within the holder during mixing. Ex. 1001, 3:65– 4:23. Based on the description provided in the ’658 patent, the claim language at issue in claim 1 – “the splash shield having sufficient mass to retain the vessel within the holder during relative movement of the mixing element and vessel from the first position to the second position when liquid is present in the vessel” – is entitled to its plain and ordinary meaning: “the splash shield is heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the vessel so as to retain the vessel within the holder when the mixing element moves upwardly in the vessel from the first position to the second position when liquid is present.” See Ex. 1001, 4:3–10 (“heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the cup to overcome any upward force created by the mixing blade being moved upwardly in the cup”). The claim language in claim 6 “the mass of the splash shield preventing separation of the holder and the vessel during translation” is similarly construed to mean “the splash shield is heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the vessel so as to prevent separation of the holder and the vessel during translation of the mixing element or holder.”” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,520,658

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.