• Sterlite Technologies Inc. v. Afl Telecommunications, LLC.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,287,591
• Ecto World, LLC / Sv3, LLC v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,925,202
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · PGR2024-00025 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–20 were more likely than not unpatentable over either obviousness ground, for lack of utility, or as indefinite.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’033 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–22, 44–45). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’033 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level”” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner does not offer a specific construction for any claim terms. Pet. 19–20. Rather, Petitioner contends that “the outer boundary of the Challenged Claims lacks reasonable certainty,” and, therefore, “the Challenged Claims are unpatentable as indefinite under §112(b).” Pet. 20. Petitioner further contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious “regardless of the outer boundary of the claims.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s arguments regarding indefiniteness, and does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. As explained in detail below, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s indefiniteness arguments, and determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner focuses its obviousness challenge on 1PNZQ23’s phenotype, and does not address its genotype. Prelim. Resp. 41–42; see Pet. 26–32 (comparing 1PNZQ23’s phenotype with the phenotypes of the asserted prior art). Petitioner does not direct us to, nor do we discern, any information in the Petition or Reply regarding 1PNZQ23’s genotype that supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding obviousness. Furthermore, Patent Owner offers information suggesting that “the breeding of 1PNZQ23 was unpredictable even with both parents being known in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 47. Dr. Schnable addresses unpredictability in the breeding process, stating: distinct even when the F1 plant itself results from a cross of two inbreds. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not expect that a cross of the same parents will produce F2 or D1 progeny identical to 1PNZQ23. . . . [T]he genome of a progeny plant is the result of genetic segregation and recombination in the F1 plant of the two parental genomes and the chance of the exact same child resulting from that initial biparental cross is infinitesimally small. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123. This information undermines Petitioner’s arguments regarding an expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,707,033
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · PGR2024-00023 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 because the petition did not show they were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness, utility, written-description, or enablement ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’545 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist as along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’545 patent, and we adopt it for purposes” slip op. at 6

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

    “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2019). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner also does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). slip op. at 7

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

    “additional reasons. For example, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at PH4CYJ based on Smalley’s disclosure alone. Prelim. Resp. 51–52. According to the ’545 patent specification, the claimed PH4CYJ inbred maize variety is a cross between inbred line PH1VNA and inbred line PH1KTF. Ex. 1001, 37:62–64. In the simplest terms, PH1VNA and PH1KTF are the parents, and their cross ultimately resulted in the inbred variety PH4CYJ. The ’545 patent explains that after the initial crossing of the parental lines, the” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,696,545
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 24, 2024 · PGR2024-00019 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–20 because the Petition did not show they were more likely than not unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that claims 1–20 of the ’803 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a post-grant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’803 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner also does not construe and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms requires an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “their cross ultimately resulted in the inbred variety 1PFLQ21. The ’803 patent explains that after the initial crossing of the parental lines, the selection of the progeny was based on genetic analysis predicting disease, insect, and agronomic phenotypic performance. Id. 37:64–66. “Inbred 1PFLQ21 was developed by producing a doubled haploid from the F1 plants, selfing and using pedigree selection amongst the D1 lines, and selfing and bulking from the subsequent generations.” Id. 37:66–38:3. The ’803 patent specification, therefore, makes it clear that simply crossing both parental inbred maize lines is not reasonably expected to result in the claimed inbred maize variety; rather, it explains that more plant breeding work is required to arrive at the 1PFLQ21 inbred maize line than just having both parental inbred maize lines available.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,659,803
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 24, 2024 · PGR2024-00020 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  Denied institution of PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood equivalent under § 324 that any challenged claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’020 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a high level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist . . . along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art,” but “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’020 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 22. Patent Owner also does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Based on these disclosures in Smalley, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the parental line PH1D84 could have been used as a starting point to arrive at other inbred lines. See Pet. 41. Petitioner, however, fails to demonstrate sufficiently how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in developing 1PFHC43 specifically, when its other parent was not known in the art at the relevant time. As Dr. Schnable explains, 1PFHC43’s genome is derived from its parents. Ex. 2004 ¶ 115. Petitioner does not address how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to produce the claimed seed, including its unique genotype, without having access to PH1VNA or its genomic and phenotypic information.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,666,020
• Microsoft Corporation / HP Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,880,715
• Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. / Sony Group Corporation v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,941,830
• Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. / Sony Group Corporation v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,860,337
• Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. / Sony Group Corporation v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents 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.