- Sterlite Technologies Inc. v. Afl Telecommunications, LLC.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00127 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 8, or 13 were unpatentable over either proposed obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been unpatentable over the proposed prior art. We analyze the asserted grounds with the above-noted principles in mind.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art As noted above, resolving the question of obviousness requires determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Here, however, as Patent Owner observes (Prelim. Resp. 10), 8 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of secondary considerations in its Preliminary Response. Therefore, secondary considerations do not constitute part of our analysis herein. Petitioner has provided no assessment as to the level of ordinary skill to be considered in evaluating the grounds of obviousness that are advanced by Petitioner. The absence of such assessment calls into question the fundamental adequacy of Petitioner in carrying its burden to show a reasonable likelihood of success of unpatentability of the challenged claims that necessarily must take into account the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In any event, we do not discern that there is any apparent dispute between the parties as to the meaning of any claim term. In considering the record at hand, we determine that it is unnecessary to make explicit, or further address, any claim term in deciding whether or not to institute trial. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the 9 Throughout their briefings, the parties refer to the limitations designated [1.1] through [1.7] using the term “element,” e.g., “element [1.7]” (see, e.g., Pet. 23; Prelim. Resp. 23). For consistency with the parties’ chosen nomenclature, we do the same in this Decision. controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Summers’ fiber optic cable 50 to include Kaji’s intermittently-fixed optical fiber tape 2A to obtain the predictable result of enabling a higher density of optical fibers to be packed in Summers’ fiber optic cable 50, as contemplated by Kaji. *** a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because such modification would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of Summers’ four-fiber ribbons 52 with Kaji’s intermittently-fixed optical fiber tape 2A by known methods of cable manufacturing. ***” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,287,591 - Ecto World, LLC / Sv3, LLC v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 10, 2025 · PGR2024-00049 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show the patent was eligible for PGR; the challenged claims were supported by the 2006 priority application.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims lack written support in the Specification (and the ’634 application). That is, on this record, it appears that the challenged claims properly claim priority to the ’634 application and, accordingly, have an effective filing date in October 2006. 2. Conclusion: PGR Eligibility For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the ’202 patent has, or had, at least one claim having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, we determine that the ’202 patent is entitled to the filing date of the ’634 application (October 18, 2006), and, thus, the ’202 patent is not eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, the ’202 patent consistently and repeatedly characterizes the invention as incorporating tobacco in some form and ties the stated benefits of the invention to the inclusion of tobacco. Moreover, the Specification is directed to smoking articles containing tobacco, all of the embodiments include tobacco, and “the present invention” is described as a smoking article, where the smoking article includes tobacco. Consequently, we determine that “smoking article” as it is used in the challenged claims is limited to devices that include tobacco. See Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, 55 F.4th 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding claimed “lip” is limited to “extrudable plastic materials” where specification states that “the device of the present invention is constructed of extrudable plastic materials” and “emphasizes the benefits of using extrudable plastics and describes them as benefits of the invention as a whole”); Poly-Am., L.P. v. described in the specification has inwardly extended short seals and every section of the specification indicates the importance of inwardly extended short seals. These two facts provide together a proper reason to limit the claims in this way.”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. In that instance as well, the inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.”).” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s argument is dependent on accepting Petitioner’s assertion that the claims include a smoking article that does not contain tobacco, which we have not done. Instead, as set forth above, we construe “smoking article” as being limited to devices that include tobacco. See § II.B.2, supra. Based on our construction of “smoking article” and the evidence of record in this proceeding, we determine that the challenged claims are supported by the specification of the ’202 patent, which is identical to the specification of all of the continuations in the chain leading back to the October 18, 2006 that the specification of the ’202 patent and every patent in its priority chain “have identical specifications”); Prelim. Resp. 13 (noting that Petitioner does not identify other limitations in the challenged claims “allegedly lacking support in the ’202 patent family’s applications dating back to U.S. App. No. 11/550,634, filed on October 18, 2006”). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims lack written support in the Specification (and the ’634 application). That is, on this record, it appears that the challenged claims properly claim priority to the ’634 application and, accordingly, have an effective filing date in October 2006.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,925,202 - PTAB · Mar 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01180 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16 were unpatentable, chiefly because Rao did not teach blocking network access.
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. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). 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). “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). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have (1) held at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) had three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner further argues that “[m]ore related education would compensate for fewer years of work experience (and vice versa).” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner “does not challenge the Petition’s proposed definition.” Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of a person having ordinary skill in the art, which is not disputed and consistent with the invention claimed in the ’076 patent.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner argues that the term “disallow[]” should be given the same construction the parties agreed upon during the district court proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 9. 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))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“However, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain where Rao teaches “allow[ing] or disallow[ing]” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 13–18, 25–30. To the extent Petitioner and Dr. Bims cite to Rao, they reference paragraphs 191 through 193, which discuss how Rao’s filter 322 is used to implement prioritization. See Pet. 15; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65. More specifically, those paragraphs recite using prioritization to place the network packets in different queues based on their priority. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 191–193. We see nothing in Rao that teaches or suggest that the network packets would be disallowed, as opposed to simply delayed, based on priority. Id. And, as Patent Owner argues, this finding is consistent with factual findings made by a different panel considering the teachings of Rao in an inter partes review of a related patent. See Prelim. Resp. 16–18 (citing Samsung Elecs. Co v. Headwater Research LLC, IPR2023-01361, Paper 8 (PTAB Mar. 29, 2024) (Decision Denying Institution)). Even if one reads the Petition as arguing that a person having ordinary skill would have modified Rao to include Araujo’s blocking—which we do not—we would not be sufficiently persuaded by that argument. Although Petitioner explains why a person having ordinary skill in the art would want to consider power usage along with whether the application is in the foreground or background, Petitioner does not explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have changed prioritization to blocking. See Pet. 13–18. Indeed, such a modification appears to be one that would render Rao “inoperable for its intended purpose.” In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,198,076 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com Services LLC v. Nokia Technologies OYInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00920 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 22–24, 26, 29–33, 35, or 38 were unpatentable over the asserted Koga-based grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “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). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’991 patent. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s request and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a (1) bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study, and (2) approximately two to three years of practical experience with video and/or image processing or coding.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–63). Petitioner further argues that “[a]dditonal experience can substitute for the level of education, and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–63). Petitioner also identifies knowledge that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have. Id. at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). Patent Owner states that it “has applied Petitioner’s [person having ordinary skill in the art] for the sake of this Response.” Prelim. Resp. 21. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the field of the invention of the ’991 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Based on the ordinary meaning of the phrases, “spatial samples” and “spatial information” must refer to different information. Because the “spatial samples [are] decoded into spatial information,” the decoded “spatial information” must be different than the coded “spatial samples.” If “spatial information” were the same as “spatial samples,” then there would be nothing to decode. That construction is consistent with the claim construction rule that different terms are presumed to have different meanings. See MicroStrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects Ams., 238 F. App’x 605, 609 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”); Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings . . . .”)). Here, we see no evidence that the claim phrases have the same meaning. To the contrary, the ’991 patent uses the term spatial samples to refer to the image’s pixel values. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:65–67 (“the prediction error signal for a single image block is constructed using both transform basis functions and spatial samples (i.e., pixel values)”) (emphasis added); id. at 4:21–26 (same). The spatial information, however, refers to the result of decoding. See, e.g., id. at 3:29–30 (“the plurality of spatial samples are decoded into decoded spatial information”) (emphasis added); id. at 6:53–55 (“the decoded spatial information and reconstructed prediction of the image block are added together to form the decoded representation of the image block”) (emphasis added); id., Fig. 5, 520 (showing “Decoded Spatial Info”). This is consistent with the claim’s plain language. See id. at 10:1–2 (claim 22 reciting “decoding, by a processor, the plurality of spatial samples into decoded spatial information”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, “spatial samples” and “spatial information” do not refer to the same thing.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner maps both spatial samples and spatial information to the residual of the prediction error. Compare Pet. 37 (referring to spatial samples as the residual of the prediction error), with id. at 44 (referring to spatial information as the residual of the prediction error). However, because spatial samples and spatial information cannot refer to the same thing, they cannot both be the residual of the prediction error. See Section II.C.1 supra. Accordingly, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that claim 22, along with dependent claims 23, 24, 26, and 30 would have been obvious over Koga. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”); Pet. 47–63 (relying on the analysis of claim 22 for the spatial samples and spatial information limitations). With regard to independent claim 31, along with dependent claims 32, 33, and 35, Petitioner relies on the same arguments discussed above for limitation 22a and 22c to show that Koga teaches commensurate limitations 31c and 31d. See Pet. 54 (“As explained above, Koga teaches the shared substantive limitations of [22a]–[22d] (supra §§VI.A.1) that correspond to limitations [31b]–[31e].”). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above for claim 22, we are not sufficiently persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that independent claim 31, along with dependent claims 32, 33, and 35 would have been obvious in view of Koga.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,077,991 - Google LLC / Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless et al. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00945 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–24 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). 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). 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).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Prelim. Resp. 22; Ex. 2001 ¶ 67. Patent Owner argues Petitioner relies on Freund to “cure this deficiency,” but the “Petition fails to explain why [the skilled artisan] seeking to implement a Rao-based system would look to Freund’s teachings of foreground/background classifications designed to limit an employee’s ‘counterproductive Web browsing.’” Prelim. Resp. 22. According to Patent Owner and its expert, Mr. de la Iglesia, the skilled artisan “would not have been motivated to do so, because directly contrary to Rao which suggests prioritizing foreground activity over background activity, the relevant teachings of Freund restrict foreground activity relative to background activity.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 67–79); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 69 (“Rao favors foreground activity, and Freund favors background activity”), 70 (“In contrast [to Rao], Freund teaches the opposite—that foreground activity should be disfavored relative to background activity.”); Prelim. Resp. 23–25. Patent Owner argues the “Petition does not explain why [the skilled artisan] would have been motivated to combine these two references’ treatment of foreground/background classifications, given their opposing treatment of foreground and background activity.” Id. at 25; see id. at 25–28 (Patent Owner explaining why “none of the Petition’s motivations would have justified combining Rao’s and Freund’s contradictory teachings regarding treatment of foreground activity.” (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 74–79)). In short, according to Patent Owner’s expert’s persuasive testimony, “if [the skilled artisan] were looking for ways to supplement Rao’s treatment of foreground activity, they would not have looked to teachings that explicitly disfavor foreground activities, contrary to Rao’s teachings.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 79 (cited at Prelim. Resp. 28).” slip op. at 31
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner does not present an alternative definition at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 5–6 (“For purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not challenge that definition.”). 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) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues, at least at this stage of the proceeding, that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’613 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan (Ex. 1003 ¶ 61), we apply the level of skill set forth above.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim terms for construction. Pet. 3 (“No terms require construction to resolve this Petition.”); Prelim. Resp. 6 (“Patent Owner agrees that no formal claim construction is necessary.”). We do not find that the express construction of any term is necessary for this decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,215,613 - Google LLC / Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless et al. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00944 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Rao anticipates or renders obvious claims 79 and 83.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’541 patent. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied.” slip op. at 24
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“the Petition (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 189–193 (cited by Pet. 22)) and see no discussion as to what causes policies 520 to be sent to filter 322. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–43 (Mr. de la Iglesia testifying to same). Although Rao describes how agent 326 sends policies to filter 322, Rao is silent as to what causes that transmission: In some embodiments, the agent 326 indicates the priority to the filter 322 for management of network packet queues 540a- 540n to apply the indicated priorities. The agent 326 may communicate the priority of network packets to the filter 322 by any suitable means and/or mechanism such as via an application programming interface (API), such an IOCTL interface, or any other type and/or form of interface known to those ordinarily skilled in the art. Ex. 1002 ¶ 190. That is, Rao is silent as to whether filter 322 requests the policies (as Petitioner argues) or agent 326 acts on its own to send the policies (see Prelim. Resp. 3–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 34–40). And without the message being sent to the filter, there is nothing for the filter to intercept.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“the Petition (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 189–193 (cited by Pet. 22)) and see no discussion as to what causes policies 520 to be sent to filter 322. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–43 (Mr. de la Iglesia testifying to same). Although Rao describes how agent 326 sends policies to filter 322, Rao is silent as to what causes that transmission: In some embodiments, the agent 326 indicates the priority to the filter 322 for management of network packet queues 540a- 540n to apply the indicated priorities. The agent 326 may communicate the priority of network packets to the filter 322 by any suitable means and/or mechanism such as via an application programming interface (API), such an IOCTL interface, or any other type and/or form of interface known to those ordinarily skilled in the art. Ex. 1002 ¶ 190. That is, Rao is silent as to whether filter 322 requests the policies (as Petitioner argues) or agent 326 acts on its own to send the policies (see Prelim. Resp. 3–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 34–40). And without the message being sent to the filter, there is nothing for the filter to intercept.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Neither the Petition nor Dr. Wolfe’s testimony provide any discussion as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Rao to teach the additional limitation recited in either claim 79 or 83. See Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 252–257. This stands in contrast to other portions of the Petition where Petitioner clearly set forth both anticipation and conditional obviousness arguments, including a reason to modify Rao. See, e.g., Pet. 13–15 (arguing that Rao discloses limitation 1e or that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would . . . have been motivated” to modify Rao). Thus, although the Petition purports to argue that claims 79 and 83 are obvious,8 the Petition lacks sufficient argument setting forth the basis for such an obviousness argument. At most, there is a conclusory statement that claims 79 and 83 are obvious. See Pet. 6 (“Rao anticipates most of the limitations discussed under this Ground for the reasons provided below. Rao renders these same limitations obvious for the same reasons.”). That is not sufficient. Where, as here, claims are alleged to be unpatentable as obvious over the prior art, Petitioner cannot make its case solely through mere conclusory statements. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, it is not our role to examine the prior art advanced by Petitioner and fill the gaps in Petitioner’s reasoning and factual assertions. Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1381 (“[W]e find no support for the PTO’s position that the Board is free to adopt arguments on behalf of petitioners that could have been, but were not, raised 8 See Pet. 1 (“Rao ‘anticipates and/or renders obvious’ claims” 1, 79, and 83), 6 (“Rao anticipates most of the limitations discussed under this Ground for the reasons provided below. Rao renders these same limitations obvious for the same reasons. Rao also renders obvious the remaining limitations discussed under this Ground.”); Pet. Prelim. Reply 1 (“Rao therefore discloses or renders obvious intercepting a stack API level request by its filter requesting priorities from the agent.”). by the petitioner during an IPR.”); see also SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (U.S. 2008) (“in an inter partes review the petitioner is master of its complaint”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon”). Because Petitioner has not offered any reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have made a modification to claims 79 and 83, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that claims 79 and 83 would have been obvious. 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 [the] prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,589,541 - Microsoft Corporation / HP Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00457 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“The parties agreed that resolution of this time bar issue would be resolved in the same manner as in IPR2024-00456. In particular, the parties stipulated: The parties stipulate with respect to the privity time bar issue that the facts and issues in IPR2024-00457 are the same as in IPR2024-00456, so that any decision the Board reaches resolving the privity time bar issue in IPR2024-00456 will apply and resolve the privity time bar issue in IPR2024-00457 in the same manner. Notice of Stipulation, Paper 14, 1. In the decision on institution for IPR2024-00456, the Board determined that “Lenovo is not a privity of Microsoft [in this context] and the Petition is not time-barred under § 315(b).” IPR2024-00456, Paper 22, 10 (July 31, 2024). Thus, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the instant petition is also not time-barred.” slip op. at 16
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For this decision, we again construe “plurality of views of a plurality of visual representations of computer content” as “referring to a plurality of ways of organizing visual representations of computer content.” We again note that this limitation is distinct from merely providing a plurality of ways of displaying content (by, for example, changing display orientation, color, resolution, etc.). Petitioner assumes this construction for the Petition, and Patent Owner assumes this construction for Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Moreover, the construction is well supported by the ’715 patent’s claims and specification for reasons similar to those stated in the prior decision cited by Petitioner. IPR2021-00786, Paper 6, 13–16 (construing this term for the ’715 patent). For this decision, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any other claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analysis below and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties.7 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” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“Below, we explain that we deny institution based on the merits: Petitioner has not shown, with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial. In the interest of judicial efficiency, we therefore do not need to consider discretionary denial. Cf. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explaining that the Board is not required to reach issues unnecessary to “resolve the controversy”); see also, e.g., Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. Dish Techs. LLC, IPR 2024-00512, Paper 12, 12, n. 3 (declining to reach the 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) issues when denying based on 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)).” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field, plus two years of work experience in designing GUIs for computing devices. Ex-1003, ¶ 21. More education could substitute for experience and vice versa. Id. Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art and the ’715 patent. 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 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,880,715 - Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. / Sony Group Corporation v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00570 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8, 11, 15–17, and 20 were obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition and . . . any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’830 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have an engineering-related undergraduate degree such as electrical, mechanical, or computer engineering, with at least two years of experience with computer-controlled electrical or electronic systems, or equivalent academic experience (e.g., a master’s degree with a similar focus). The POSITA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through a combination of education and experience in the above. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’830 patent specification.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“As Patent Owner shows, the specification reveals that in step 762, “the routine ‘control’ computes an output value p corresponding to the currently selected strength, stored in the variable strength, and outputs the value p to the power supply so that the power supply outputs an appropriate current to the coil.” Id. at 15 (emphasis added) (quoting Ex. 1001, 8:20–30). Step 762 corresponds to, for example, control input 624 transmitted from CPU 602 to power supply 612 of Figure 6 to control the current from power supply 612 to coil 626. See supra Section II.C (describing Fig. 6); Ex. 1001, 6:41–44 (“The power supply 612 receives a control input 624 from the CPU to control the current supplied to the H-bridge switch 618 for transfer to the coil 626.”). The specification, therefore, supports Patent Owner. The specification clearly links this algorithmic structure to the recited function, “controlling supply of power from the power supply.” As Patent Owner shows, Petitioner agreed in the Sony litigation that the corresponding structure includes “provide a corresponding output to the power supply so that the power supply provides a corresponding output to the driving component and equivalents thereof.” Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (quoting Ex. 2001, 12–14).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The record supports Patent Owner. Under a means plus function analysis, which the parties agree applies, Petitioner relies on Houston’s microprocessor as the structure that corresponds to the recited “control component.” Pet. 36 (“Houston teaches that vibration controller 623 is a microprocessor thereby satisfying the structural requirement of this means plus-function limitation.”). microprocessor, limitation 1.f further requires algorithmic structure (processed by the microprocessor of the recited “control component”) to include “1) computing a digital output value corresponding to user-selected amplitude of oscillation and outputting the value to the claimed power supply so that the power supply outputs an appropriate current amplitude to the coil.” Supra Section III.C (emphasis added). In other words, as Patent Owner argues, to satisfy limitation 1.f, the “prior art [at least] would need to have this microprocessor perform the algorithmic step of ‘provid[ing] a corresponding ‘output to the power supply.’” Prelim. Resp. 18. Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he Petition fails to show that this [algorithmic step] is disclosed or rendered obvious by the combination of Houston and Goldenberg.” Prelim. Resp. 18. The record supports Patent Owner. Petitioner does not contend, let alone show, that the combination of Houston and Goldenberg teaches outputting any value to a power supply as limitation 1.f requires according to the claim construction Patent Owner argues and we adopt. See Pet. 35–42; supra Section III.C. It follows that the Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success of prevailing with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,941,830 - Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. / Sony Group Corporation v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00569 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2 or 3 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition and . . . any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of claims 2 and 3, the remaining “challenged claims” per the disclaimer. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’337 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have an engineering-related undergraduate degree such as electrical, mechanical, or computer engineering, with at least two years of experience with computer-controlled electrical or electronic systems, or equivalent academic experience (e.g., a master’s degree with a similar focus). The POSITA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through a combination of education and experience in the above. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 129). Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 4. of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’337 patent specification.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“called in step 716 in FIG. 7A” (Ex. 1001, 8:10–11), where Figures 7A–7C “illustrate the control program, executed by the CPU, that controls operation of an LRVM” (id. at 6:43–45). Essentially, Figures 7A–7C represent a disclosed algorithm used with a CPU of a microprocessor with memory for implementing the algorithm to control the supply of current from a power supply to a coil surrounding a moveable magnet. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Fig. 6; supra Section. II.C. “the routine ‘control’ computes an output value p corresponding to the currently selected strength, stored in the variable strength, and outputs the value p to the power supply so that the power supply outputs an appropriate current to the coil.” Prelim. Resp. 16 (emphasis added) (quoting Ex. 1001, 8:10–20). Step 762 corresponds to, for example, control input 624 transmitted from CPU 602 to power supply 612 of Figure 6 to control the current from power supply 612 to coil 626. See supra Section II.C (describing Fig. 6); Ex. 1001, 6:33–35 (“The power supply 612 receives a control input 624 from the CPU to control the current supplied to the H-bridge switch 618 for transfer to the coil 626.”). The specification, therefore, supports Patent Owner. The specification clearly links this algorithmic structure to the recited function, “controlling supply of power from the power supply.” As Patent Owner shows, Petitioner agreed in the Sony litigation that the corresponding structure includes “provide a corresponding output to the power supply so that the power supply provides a corresponding output to the driving component and equivalents thereof.” Prelim. Resp. 14–15 (quoting Ex. 2002, 4–5). In summary, limitation 2.f recites “a control component that controls supply of power from the power supply to the driving component to cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency and an amplitude specified by user input received from the user input features.” Step 762, which corresponds to control input 624 transmitted from CPU 602 to power supply 612 in the block diagram of Figure 6, is a clear link of algorithmic structure to the recited function of “control[ling] supply of power from the” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The record supports Patent Owner. Under a means plus function analysis, which the parties agree applies, Petitioner relies on Houston’s microprocessor as the structure that corresponds to the recited “control component.” Pet. 34 (“Houston teaches that vibration controller 623 is a microprocessor thereby satisfying the structural requirement of this means plus-function limitation.”). As indicated in Section III.C, if the corresponding structure is a microprocessor, limitation 2.f further requires algorithmic structure (processed by the microprocessor of the recited “control component”) to include “1) computing a digital output value corresponding to user-selected amplitude of oscillation and outputting the value to the claimed power supply so that the power supply outputs an appropriate current amplitude to the coil.” Supra Section III.C (emphasis added). In other words, as Patent Owner argues, to satisfy limitation 2.f, the “prior art [at least] would need to have this microprocessor perform the algorithmic step of ‘provid[ing] a corresponding ‘output to the power supply.’” Prelim. Resp. 19. Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he Petition fails to show that this [algorithmic Goldenberg,” and Tierling. Id. at 19, 23.14 The record supports Patent Owner. Petitioner does not contend, let alone show, that the combination of Houston, Goldenberg, and Tierling teaches outputting any value to a power supply as limitation 2.f requires according to the claim construction Patent Owner argues and we adopt. See Pet. 35–44; supra Section III.C. It follows that the Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success of prevailing with respect to claim 1. In addition, although not necessary to our decision based on the dispositive claim construction issue discussed above, the Petition fails to show that the combination of Houston, Goldenberg, and Tierling teaches the “control component” algorithmic structure corresponding to the function of “caus[ing] the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency” as recited in limitation 2.f. Specifically, the Petition fails to show that the combination of Houston, Goldenberg, and Tierling teaches the following corresponding structure of the control component according to our claim construction: “at least one timer or equivalent to control a periodic change in direction of the current supplied to the coil . . . by providing a control value . . . such that the value flips according to the timer or its equivalent.” See supra Section II.C; Pet. 35–44.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,860,337 - Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. / Sony Group Corporation v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00568 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8, 11, or 17 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The record supports Patent Owner. Under a means plus function analysis, which the parties agree applies, Petitioner relies on Houston’s microprocessor as the structure that corresponds to the recited “control component.” Pet. 36 (“Houston teaches that vibration controller 623 is a microprocessor thereby satisfying the structural requirement of this means plus-function limitation.”). microprocessor, limitation 1.f further requires algorithmic structure (processed by the microprocessor of the recited “control component”) to include “1) computing a digital output value corresponding to user-selected amplitude of oscillation and outputting the value to the claimed power supply so that the power supply outputs an appropriate current amplitude to the coil.” Supra Section III.C (emphasis added). In other words, as Patent Owner argues, to satisfy limitation 1.f, the “prior art [at least] would need to have this microprocessor perform the algorithmic step of ‘provid[ing] a corresponding ‘output to the power supply.’” Prelim. Resp. 18. Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he Petition fails to show that this [algorithmic step] is disclosed or rendered obvious by the combination of Houston and Goldenberg.” Prelim. Resp. 18. The record supports Patent Owner. Petitioner does not contend, let alone show, that the combination of Houston and Goldenberg teaches outputting any value to a power supply as limitation 1.f requires according to the claim construction Patent Owner argues and we adopt. See Pet. 35–44; supra Section III.C. It follows that the Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success of prevailing with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for patent owner
“The specification, therefore, supports Patent Owner. The specification clearly links this algorithmic structure to the recited function, “controlling supply of power from the power supply.” As Patent Owner shows, Petitioner agreed in the Sony litigation that the corresponding structure includes “provide a corresponding output to the power supply so that the power supply provides a corresponding output to the driving component and equivalents thereof.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (quoting Ex. 2002, 9).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“microprocessor, limitation 1.f further requires algorithmic structure (processed by the microprocessor of the recited “control component”) to include “1) computing a digital output value corresponding to user-selected amplitude of oscillation and outputting the value to the claimed power supply so that the power supply outputs an appropriate current amplitude to the coil.” Supra Section III.C (emphasis added). In other words, as Patent Owner argues, to satisfy limitation 1.f, the “prior art [at least] would need to have this microprocessor perform the algorithmic step of ‘provid[ing] a corresponding ‘output to the power supply.’” Prelim. Resp. 18. Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he Petition fails to show that this [algorithmic step] is disclosed or rendered obvious by the combination of Houston and Goldenberg.” Prelim. Resp. 18. The record supports Patent Owner. Petitioner does not contend, let alone show, that the combination of Houston and Goldenberg teaches outputting any value to a power supply as limitation 1.f requires according to the claim construction Patent Owner argues and we adopt. See Pet. 35–44; supra Section III.C. It follows that the Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success of prevailing with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,369,081
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.