• Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00252 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 8–23 obvious over any asserted combination.

  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) (2024); Paper 8 (referral to panel after no discretionary denial briefing under the Interim Processes memorandum). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 78–82). Patent Owner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 2001 § IV.C). The differences between the parties’ definitions are minor, as recognized by Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 104), and we do not discern any meaningful differences based on the preliminary record. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’088 patent and the asserted prior art. Notwithstanding, we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 10

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

    “For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “obviousness contentions based on Ellis and Spivey rely expressly on the use of a “known webserver” to perform the “transmitting first instructions” limitations excerpted above. See Pet. 28–34. Yet Petitioner does not specify how such a webserver would be integrated with the other elements from Ellis and Spivey cited by Petitioner. At best, Petitioner provides a background section on the known use of webservers (see id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 49–53, 127–134)), but this does not provide a rationale for integrating a webserver in the Ellis–Spivey combination. We also have considered Petitioner’s cited testimony from Dr. Wicker supporting this background section. The first cited portion, which is located at paragraphs 49–53 of Dr. Wicker’s declaration, supports the premises in the background section, but does not include a rationale for adding a webserver to the Ellis– Spivey combination. See Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 49–53. The second cited portion, which is located at paragraphs 127–134 of Dr. Wicker’s declaration, includes a rationale for modifying the Ellis–Spivey combination to include a webserver.3 See Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 127–134. But that rationale is completely 3 The cited rationale in Dr. Wicker’s declaration appears to be tailored to support Petitioner’s obviousness contentions in IPR2025-00251, where unaddressed in the Petition. We decline to assume that Petitioner adopts Dr. Wicker’s testimony about the rationale as its position, because that would amount to improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 35–36 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (citing Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative)) (stating that “parties that incorporate expert testimony by reference in their petitions, motions, or replies without providing explanation of such testimony risk having the testimony not considered by the Board”).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,871,088
• Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00251 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because neither asserted obviousness combination showed a reasonable likelihood of success, chiefly due to unsupported webserver teachings and motivation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “c. Analysis We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s rationale for adding a facilitator- type webserver to the Ellis–Spivey combination based on “POSA’s Knowledge.” First, Petitioner’s combination of Spivey with Ellis is already allegedly based on improving latency issues via the incorporation of Spivey’s LDSD and MQSD in Ellis’s system. See Pet. 22–24. Petitioner touts that this modification would result in reduced latency to a time period “at least two orders of magnitude shorter than conventional time periods of legacy devices.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 96). But the Petition does not establish whether this latency improvement would or could be maintained when adding a separate webserver, as it has proposed. And Dr. Rubin testifies that the inclusion of an additional webserver—an additional component—is likely to create latency insofar as it must receive, process, and/or handle data. Ex. 2001 ¶ 305. We are persuaded by Dr. Rubin’s testimony, and we find that adding a webserver to Petitioner’s existing Ellis– Spivey combination tends to undermine Petitioner’s foundational rationale for combining these references, which is the reduction of latency. See Pet. 23.” slip op. at 22

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

    “Third, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 49) that Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have added a facilitator-type webserver to the Ellis–Spivey combination when neither reference teaches or suggests a webserver for facilitating communication between a client and a socket server. Dr. Wicker’s supporting testimony stresses that “webservers were well-known components in streaming systems that were useful for facilitating communication between client devices and socket servers, and client devices and media sources.” Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 128–132. But “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner fails to provide any persuasive reason with a rational underpinning why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to add a webserver to the existing Ellis–Spivey combination.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The differences between the parties’ definitions are minor, as recognized by Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 104), and we do not discern any meaningful differences based on the preliminary record. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’088 patent and the asserted prior art. Notwithstanding, we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 8. Petitioner also argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “socket” is “a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first event information is provided to a VCD [viewer client device].” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 163). Thus, Petitioner argues that a “first event socket corresponding to the first event information” is “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to VCDs.” Id. Patent Owner states that “[e]xcept for the ‘socket’ term for which Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s construction . . . for purposes of [its] preliminary response, Patent Owner agrees that no terms require construction and construes all other terms consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,871,088
• Directv, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01061 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–3 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, and denied joinder to the non-instituted DISH Network IPR.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the same reasons discussed in our Decision Denying Institution of the DISH Network IPR, Paper 14, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied

    “Joinder is only permissible, however, when the inter partes review Petitioner seeks to join has been instituted. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). As the DISH Network IPR has not been instituted, we do not grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 3

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,889,759
• Toyota Motor Corp. / Kia Copr. v. Emerging Automotive LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00785 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Zaid disclosed or taught the claimed vehicle-unlocking request, for claims 1–7, 10–15, and 18–20.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner reads Zaid’s reservation for a vehicle as providing “access” to said vehicle too broadly. Zaid discloses that (1) when a reservation is received, (2) vehicle access is provided, and (3) then “once vehicle access is provided, the user can send commands from the wireless communication device to a vehicle access control component coupled to the vehicle to accurate various vehicle functionalities, such as open the vehicle door, tum on the engine, and/or otherwise allow the user to use the vehicle.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 124. We understand this disclosure to mean that Zaid provides a separate command for unlocking the doors, which occurs after the vehicle is reserved. See id. Thus, we find that reservation request is different than and separate from the request for unlocking the reserved vehicle. Petitioner, however, does not identify Zaid’s command for unlocking the doors as the claimed “request” for unlocking the vehicle. See Pet. 29–31.” slip op. at 24

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner reads Zaid’s reservation for a vehicle as providing “access” to said vehicle too broadly. Zaid discloses that (1) when a reservation is received, (2) vehicle access is provided, and (3) then “once vehicle access is provided, the user can send commands from the wireless communication device to a vehicle access control component coupled to the vehicle to accurate various vehicle functionalities, such as open the vehicle door, tum on the engine, and/or otherwise allow the user to use the vehicle.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 124. We understand this disclosure to mean that Zaid provides a separate command for unlocking the doors, which occurs after the vehicle is reserved. See id. Thus, we find that reservation request is different than and separate from the request for unlocking the reserved vehicle. Petitioner, however, does not identify Zaid’s command for unlocking the doors as the claimed “request” for unlocking the vehicle. See Pet. 29–31.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Additionally, Petitioner specifically argues that Zaid discloses this limitation. Pet. 28. Petitioner does not argue that this limitation is rendered obvious by Zaid. Id. Yet, even if Petitioner were to argue that this limitation would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan in view of Zaid, we would disagree because Petitioner has failed to show how the unlocking step would have been obvious in view of a reservation. This is especially true given that Zaid identifies these as two different steps in its process. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 124. We specifically credit the testimony of Dr. Malek that a “POSITA would understand from Zaid that any request for unlocking of a vehicle would be separate from and only occur after the vehicle is reserved” and that “Zaid further discloses that instructions for the car function, such as unlocking doors, is received through direct commands—not the separate request for reservation.” See Ex. 2001 ¶ 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 100, 124). Thus, after review of the arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation and supporting evidence that Zaid discloses or teaches “a request from the mobile device for unlocking of the vehicle” as required by limitation [1e]. Accordingly, based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that independent claim 1 is anticipated by or rendered obvious in view of Zaid.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “limitation. Pet. 28. Petitioner does not argue that this limitation is rendered obvious by Zaid. Id. Yet, even if Petitioner were to argue that this limitation would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan in view of Zaid, we would disagree because Petitioner has failed to show how the unlocking step would have been obvious in view of a reservation. This is especially true given that Zaid identifies these as two different steps in its process. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 124. We specifically credit the testimony of Dr. Malek that a “POSITA would understand from Zaid that any request for unlocking of a vehicle would be separate from and only occur after the vehicle is reserved” and that “Zaid further discloses that instructions for the car function, such as unlocking doors, is received through direct commands—not the separate request for reservation.” See Ex. 2001 ¶ 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 100, 124).” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,407,026
• Biofrontera Inc. / Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00874 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, failing to show Bansal's claimed light intensity arrangement.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An obviousness determination requires finding both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Obviousness grounds must be supported with “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” and not by “mere conclusory statements.” See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S at 418. slip op. at 11

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

    “agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown for institution that Bansal teaches or suggests arranging light sources “such that a higher intensity of light is emitted proximate the second edges compared to the intensity of light emitted not proximate the second edges,” as required by the challenged claims. Instead, Petitioner demonstrates how Bansal describes varying the density of light source distribution throughout the array to provide a higher density of light in the entire peripheral area of the array, which includes the areas proximal to both the first and second edges, as compared to the central area of the array. See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1005 ¶ 25. In this regard, Petitioner relies on Bansal’s Figure 9b, asserting that it “shows one embodiment where more light sources are placed near the edges of the panel compared to the light sources in the center.” Pet. 36–37. The comparison of Bansal’s light density between the entire periphery and the central area of the array is insufficient. What is missing from Petitioner’s argument and discussion of Bansal is how Bansal teaches or suggests a configuration that provides a higher density of light proximate to the second shorter edges of the periphery in comparison to the remaining areas of the array, which includes the first longer edges of the periphery. Without that discussion, we find that Petitioner has not shown sufficient for institution that Bansal is persuasively relied upon for the light source arrangement limitation of the challenged claims. likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge of independent claims 1, 5, 16, 20, or 21, or dependent claims 2, 4, 6–8, and 17–19 over Larsen, Bansal, and Jones.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelOther

    “would have had at least a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, physics, biomedical engineering, computer engineering, chemical engineering, material science, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one year of work or research experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, photodynamic diagnosis (PD), photodynamic therapy (PDT), phototherapy (PT), or a related field. Pet. 8. Petitioner asserts that, alternatively, a “POSITA in the relevant time frame would have had at least four years of industry or academic experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, PD, PDT, PT, or a related field.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application for the ’028 patent was filed, “would have had a M.D. and/or a Ph.D. in an electrical engineering, physics, optical sciences, optical engineering, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one to two years of work or research experience in optical engineering, optics, optoelectronics, phototherapy (‘PT’), PDT, or a related field.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner asserts that, “[a]lternatively, a POSITA could have a Bachelor’s degree in one of the above areas and at least three to four years of work or research experience in that area.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 30–31). We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar. To the extent that the proposed definitions differ, we do not need to resolve those differences as our findings and conclusion in this Decision would be the same under any of the proposed definitions.” slip op. at 9

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,697,028
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00922 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were obvious over Larson and Cai.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the reasons given, we determine Petitioner has not has not shown that the asserted prior art teaches or suggests limitation [1.7]. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Larson and Cai. a) Conclusion—Claim 1 For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.” slip op. at 20

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

    “comprise the background knowledge art, with very little substantive explanation. In our view, this string-citation, without more substantive explanation, does not satisfy Petitioner’s obligation to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Larson based on the background knowledge in the art to account for limitation 1.7.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner “agrees to use Petitioner’s definition” for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’823 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner states “each claim term in the Challenged Claims” should “be given its plain and ordinary meaning,” and “that no specific construction of any claim term is required.” Pet. 17–18. Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that, for this proceeding and the grounds presented by Petitioner, no claim term requires construction.” Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this Decision, no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,446,823
• 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
• Cox Communications, Inc. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00579 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Cox did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18 and 19 were unpatentable under either asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The proposed level of the ordinarily skilled artisan in the instant proceeding is similar to that adopted in the ’446 IPR proceeding. Here, Petitioner has not argued that the already-adopted level is wrong or explained why any differences in proposed skill levels impact the outcome of this proceeding. For purposes of this Decision, we maintain our determination to adopt the proposed level of skill in IPR2024-00446 as that skill level is reasonable and consistent with the ’775 patent specification and the prior art. Our analysis and conclusions herein, however, would be the same using Petitioner’s proposed level of the ordinarily skilled artisan in the instant proceeding.” slip op. at 10

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

    “disclosure. In particular, Schain discloses that Figure 3, relied on by Petitioner, “illustrates the logical architecture of a dual bridge” of broadband gateway 135. Ex. 1005 ¶ 45 (emphasis added). Schain also discloses that Figure 3’s “logical architecture features two bridges, one for the broadband modem portion (a cable bridge 315) and one for the residential gateway portion (a local bridge 345) of the broadband gateway 135.” Id. (emphasis added). Schain’s disclosure is of a logical separation, that is a separation in software. See, e.g., id. at 45. Claim 18, however, recites “a data networking engine implemented in a first circuit that includes at least one processor,” “a cable modem engine implemented in a second circuit that includes at least one processor,” and limitation 18d, which is “the second circuit being separate from the first circuit.” Petitioner has not shown that Schain’s disclosure of its logical architecture teaches or suggests “the second circuit being separate from the first circuit” (emphasis added). Petitioner also relies on Schain’s disclosure of “a separate driver layer” that is “[b]eneath each bridge.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 76). Schain discloses that “[t]he driver layer typically includes both hardware and software portions.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 31. Schain discloses that “[t]he hardware portion of the drive layer” is “the physical connection, such as Ethernet connections, USB connections, etc.” Id. Schain does not describe that the hardware portion of the driver layer includes a processor.” slip op. at 21

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

    “engine’ is not shown as part of its line card 731.” Prelim. Resp. 51. Patent Owner argues “[t]o bridge this gap,” Petitioner “offers only a conclusory assertion that ‘it would be a trivial modification to have the DOCSIS processor 855 of line card 731 perform this function.’” Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 200). Patent Owner argues “missing limitations . . . simply cannot be added in an obviousness analysis based on a bare assertion of trivial[ity].” Id. Patent Owner argues “it is well-settled that such missing limitations cannot be supplied by conclusory statements about ‘basic knowledge’ or ‘common sense.’” Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2016); K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014); DSS Tech. Mgmt. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “[E]xpert testimony cannot take the place of disclosure from patents or printed publications.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (2019), (“Consolidated Practice Guide” or “CTPG”) 36.3 Limitation 18i recites “the DOCSIS MAC processor configured to process downstream PDU packets and forward the processed packets directly to the data networking engine without the involvement of the DOCSIS controller in order to boost downstream throughput.” Petitioner has not shown that any asserted prior art reference teaches or suggests limitation 18i. Petitioner may not rely on the testimony of Dr. Martin to bridge this gap. After consideration of the arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that limitation 18i is 3 The CTPG is at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. taught or suggested by Perlman or Crocker and Petitioner does not rely on Fox for this limitation. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 18 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Perlman, Crocker, and Fox.” slip op. at 26

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,223,775
• 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

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.