- Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00966 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not explain whether the component limitations invoke § 112(f) or identify corresponding structure, as required by Rule 42.104(b)(3).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide[1,2](“CTPG”) . . . instructs that “[w]here claim language may be construed according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), a petitioner must provide a construction.” CTPG 45 (emphases added) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)). The CTPG advises that a party “may choose to elaborate why § 112(f) should or should not apply to the limitation at issue.” Id. Notably, the CTPG warns that “[a] petitioner who chooses not to address construction under § 112(f) risks failing to satisfy the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” Id.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDenied
“Given these facts, we determine that rule 104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition either identify “the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function” recited in the “component” term limitations or explain why the “component” term limitations are not subject to a means-plus-function construction. This, it fails to do. To be clear, we note that our rules do not prohibit a petitioner from taking inconsistent claim construction positions before the Board and a district court. See 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Labs, Inc., IPR2020- 00086, Paper 8 at 18 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2020). However, where, as here, a petitioner has proposed a claim term be construed solely as a means-plus-function limitation in a district court proceeding and emphasized that the issue is not only “most significant” but potentially “case . . . dispositive,” we determine the petition is obliged to either apply that construction in this proceeding or explain why that construction is not applicable. Accordingly, we find the Petition to be deficient under rule 104(b)(3).4” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Other
“connote a definite structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350 (identifying words such as “mechanism,” “element,” “device,” and others as verbal constructs that do not connote sufficiently definite structures). Indeed, the Specification discloses all of the “components” recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, including the “comparing component,” can be “implemented as a computer having tangible computer-readable media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon.” Ex. 1001, 5:35–43. Thus, like the word “module,” a recognized nonce word, each of the recited “components” is nothing more than “a generic description for software or hardware that performs a specified function” and their recitation “operate[s] as a substitute for ‘means’ in the context of § 112, para. 6.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. Accordingly, we construe the “comparing component” limitation recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 as a meansplus-function limitation whose function is “generating a comparison signal.”2” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelNot reached
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites MarkmanPatents in suitUS 9,333,946 - Google LLC v. Videoshare LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2021 · CBM2020-00027 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution of CBM review for claims 1–7 because the patent did not qualify as a covered business method patent; it did not reach the § 101 challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (challenged patent eligible for review because the claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy” that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). Thus, “§ 18 (d)(1) directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340. More specifically, the focus is on the claims to determine whether there is anything “explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language.” Id. The claims of the ’341 patent are directed to “[a] method for sharing video over a structured hierarchical network.” Ex. 1001, 25:14–15. We are not persuaded that this a financial activity. We agree with Patent Owner that the focus of the claims is video sharing technology. Prelim. Resp. 21. The claims describe a series of method steps for sharing video content involving servers and video files. Nowhere do the claims discuss or suggest obtaining payment or remuneration. Thus, the claims are unlike those in Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d 1331. In Blue Calypso, the claims expressly recited the term “subsidy,” which the Board construed as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Id. at 1339–40. The Federal Circuit explained that based on this understanding, the Board had concluded that the claims “were financial in nature” and instituted CBM review. Id. at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis and affirmed its decision to institute CBM patent review: “Significantly, Blue Calypso has not challenged the Board’s interpretation of subsidy as ‘financial assistance given by one to another.’” Id.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (challenged patent eligible for review because the claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy” that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). Thus, “§ 18 (d)(1) directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340. More specifically, the focus is on the claims to determine whether there is anything “explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language.” Id. The claims of the ’341 patent are directed to “[a] method for sharing video over a structured hierarchical network.” Ex. 1001, 25:14–15. We are not persuaded that this a financial activity. We agree with Patent Owner that the focus of the claims is video sharing technology. Prelim. Resp. 21. The claims describe a series of method steps for sharing video content involving servers and video files. Nowhere do the claims discuss or suggest obtaining payment or remuneration. Thus, the claims are unlike those in Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d 1331. In Blue Calypso, the claims expressly recited the term “subsidy,” which the Board construed as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Id. at 1339–40. The Federal Circuit explained that based on this understanding, the Board had concluded that the claims “were financial in nature” and instituted CBM review. Id. at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis and affirmed its decision to institute CBM patent review: “Significantly, Blue Calypso has not challenged the Board’s interpretation of subsidy as ‘financial assistance given by one to another.’” Id.” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached
“E. Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not eligible subject matter for a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 77. According to Petitioner, “[t]he claims recite the abstract idea of including advertising with appropriately formatted video.” Id. at 80. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner has failed to show that the claims recite ineligible subject matter. Prelim. Resp. 64. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he ’341 Patent claims recite specific steps that improve the functioning of a video server providing shared video files.” Id. Because we have determined that the ’341 patent does not qualify for covered business method patent review, we do not address whether the claims recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 11
§ 101 eligibilityDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,362,341 - PTAB · Mar 4, 2021 · IPR2020-00344 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and upheld denial of institution because Grounds 7, 8, 11, and 12 lacked particularity, justifying denial of the entire petition.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. REQUEST FOR REHEARING When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of 1 The PTAB E2E docket system correctly identifies the denial of POP review as Paper “11,” dated “October 26, 2020.” This document itself, however, incorrectly states that it is “Paper 10.” In fact, “Paper 10” in the PTAB E2E docket system for this IPR proceeding is Patent Owner’s “RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING,” filed on August 21, 2020 See Paper 10. We note that Patent Owner was not authorized to file this response. See Consolidated Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (“Consolidated Practice Guide”), November 2019, 90 (“The opposing party should not file a response to a request for rehearing absent a request from the Board.”). No such request was made by the Board. Accordingly, Paper 10 will be expunged from this record and will not be considered in deciding Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): (d) Rehearing. . . . The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). If an inter partes review is instituted, a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) must decide the patentability of all claims, and all grounds, asserted in the petition. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Petition fails to identify with particularity what disclosure is relied on from each of the references in Grounds 7, 8, 11, and 12, how it would be combined with the other disclosures, and why the proposed combination would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant technology. Without any explanation as to what, how, and why the references would have been combined in Grounds 7, 8, 11, and 12, we, and the Patent Owner, are left to speculate as to the specific details of asserted unpatentability based on combining the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See Paper 7 (“Decision” or “Dec.”), 14 (citation omitted). We determined that “[t]he lack of particularity [in Grounds 7, 8, 11, and 12] infects the proceeding sufficiently that we do not institute an inter partes review.” Id. at 16–17.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“asserted unpatentability of the claims challenged in Grounds 7 and 8, and why it would have been obvious to combine selected disclosures from each of the three references. We have not been directed to any persuasive evidence that the Petition met this burden.” slip op. at 10
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Petition, “the Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (Precedential). Apple v. Fintiv was decided in the context of evaluating the factors related to a co-pending parallel district court proceeding. The same holistic view applies equally to situations where some claims meet the requirements for instituting a trial and some do not. While we consider the number of claims that fail to meet the statutory and other requirements to institute an inter partes review, as well as the number of claims that meet these requirements, there is no fixed threshold or ratio of claims that meet the requirements compared to those that do not meet the requirements that controls our determination, as suggested by Petitioner (see Req. Reh’g 2. The Patent and Trademark Office addressed this issue in its “SAS Q&As”, which stated: D3. Q: Will the Board institute a petition based on the percentage of claims and grounds that meet the reasonable likelihood standard, e.g., 50%? A: No. The Board does not contemplate a fixed threshold for a sufficient number of challenges for which it will institute. Instead, the panel will evaluate the challenges and determine whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system (see 35 USC § 316(b)), the entire petition should be denied under 35 USC § 314(a). Ex. 3003, 8. As explained in our TPG, If a panel determines that a petition meets the standards for institution in relation to fewer than all the challenges presented, or where deficiencies in the petition (such as a failure to provide a construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)) affect only a portion of the challenges presented, the panel will evaluate all the challenges and determine whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system, the entire petition should be denied. TPG, 64. Where no trial is instituted, a decision to that effect will be provided, as was done in this proceeding. “The Board expects that the decision will contain a short statement as to why the standards were not met, although this may not be necessary in all cases.” Id. at 64–65.” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,918,801 - LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2016 · IPR2015-01987 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 16–28 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“any explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would come to the conclusion that the priority field of a Packet Resource Request is a requested quality of service parameter for a TBF.” Prelim. Resp. 12. We agree. Petitioner’s only support for this argument is the testimony of Dr. Fuja who states, in conclusory fashion, and without citation to evidence, that “[a person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that in the context of a connection in the form of a TBF the PRIORITY field is a requested quality of service parameter that is part of request messages communicated by a mobile station to a decision making device.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 76. Dr. Fuja’s testimony includes little persuasive evidence or reasoning. Accordingly, we assign it little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). On this record, Petitioner is not reasonably likely to show that GSM 04.60’s description of establishment of a TBF teaches a request message “indicating at least one requested quality of service parameter associated with the requested communication connection,” as recited in claim 16. Each of independent claims 20, 24, and 25 includes a limitation substantially similar to claim 16’s “indicating at least one requested quality of service parameter associated with the requested communication connection.” For the same reasons, GSM 04.06’s disclosure of TBF establishment does not teach these similar limitations of claims 20, 24, and 25.” slip op. at 12
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Claim 16 requires that the apparatus be encoded to receive from a decision making device “a channel coding scheme corresponding to said at least one quality of service parameter.” Thus, Petitioner must show that the Channel Coding Command corresponds to the QoS Information Element, or its sub-fields, identified as the at least one quality of service parameter. Petitioner’s only identified evidence of such a correspondence is Dr. Fuja’s testimony that: A POSITA would understand that the channel coding scheme that is included in the CHANNEL_CODING_COMMAND as part of the PACKET UPLINK ASSIGNMENT and the Packet Uplink Ack/Nack message is selected by the network to satisfy the QoS Profile that was negotiated during the PDP context activation procedure under the existing channel conditions. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81. As Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 9), this testimony is conclusory and lacks any explanation as to why the Channel Coding Command is selected to satisfy the QoS profile. Prelim. Resp. 9. Aside from this conclusory statement, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Fuja points to any evidence that the selection of the Channel Coding Command of GSM 04.60 has any relationship to the QoS Information Element of GSM 03.60. Petitioner’s evidence and argument is insufficient to show that the Prior GSM/GPRS Specifications or Olofsson teach this limitation. Moreover, as explained above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the Channel Coding Command is received from the SGSN, which Petitioner identifies as the “decision making device” of claim 16.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner responds that “neither Petitioner nor its declarant offer any explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would come to the conclusion that the priority field of a Packet Resource Request is a requested quality of service parameter for a TBF.” Prelim. Resp. 12. We agree. Petitioner’s only support for this argument is the testimony of Dr. Fuja who states, in conclusory fashion, and without citation to evidence, that “[a person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that in the context of a connection in the form of a TBF the PRIORITY field is a requested quality of service parameter that is part of request messages communicated by a mobile station to a decision making device.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 76. Dr. Fuja’s testimony includes little persuasive evidence or reasoning. Accordingly, we assign it little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“encoded to receive from a decision making device “a channel coding scheme corresponding to said at least one quality of service parameter.” Thus, Petitioner must show that the Channel Coding Command corresponds to the QoS Information Element, or its sub-fields, identified as the at least one quality of service parameter. Petitioner’s only identified evidence of such a correspondence is Dr. Fuja’s testimony that: A POSITA would understand that the channel coding scheme that is included in the CHANNEL_CODING_COMMAND as part of the PACKET UPLINK ASSIGNMENT and the Packet Uplink Ack/Nack message is selected by the network to satisfy the QoS Profile that was negotiated during the PDP context activation procedure under the existing channel conditions. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81. As Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 9), this testimony is conclusory and lacks any explanation as to why the Channel Coding Command is selected to satisfy the QoS profile. Prelim. Resp. 9. Aside from this conclusory statement, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Fuja points to any evidence that the selection of the Channel Coding Command of GSM 04.60 has any relationship to the QoS Information Element of GSM 03.60. Petitioner’s evidence and argument is insufficient to show that the Prior GSM/GPRS Specifications or Olofsson teach this limitation. Moreover, as explained above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the Channel Coding Command is received from the SGSN, which Petitioner identifies as the “decision making device” of claim 16. We cannot conclude, on this record, that Petitioner is likely to show that the GSM/GPRS Specifications or Olofsson teach an apparatus encoded to “receive from said decision making device a channel coding scheme corresponding to said at least one quality of service parameter,” as recited in claim 16. The remaining independent claims have analogous limitations that Petitioner, for the same reasons, has failed to show in the Prior GSM/GPRS Specifications or Olofsson. Specifically, independent claim 20 recites “a receiver configured to receive from the network element, a channel coding scheme corresponding to said at least one quality of service parameter”; independent claim 24 recites “receive from said decision making device at least one of a channel coding and interleaving scheme corresponding to said at least one quality of service parameter”; and independent claim 25 recites “receiving from said decision making device a channel coding scheme corresponding to said at least one quality of service parameter.”” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
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.