- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Omni Medsci, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 14, 2026 · IPR2025-01253 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director vacated institution and denied the IPR petition because the patent was determined eligible for PGR and therefore not eligible for IPR.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedDecided for patent owner
“Given my determination in PGR2026-00003 as to the ’790 patent’s PGR eligibility, and because a patent cannot be both PGR eligible and IPR eligible at the same time, it is appropriate to vacate institution of this IPR. See, e.g., Philip Morris Prods., S.A. v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-01188, Paper 12 at 10–12 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2021); Paper 6, 3 n.2 (Samsung acknowledging that the ’790 patent is not eligible for simultaneous IPR and PGR). Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the Notice granting institution of inter partes review (Paper 19) is vacated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,193,790 - Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00952 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–18 because the Petition failed to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) by omitting required claim-construction analysis.
RulingsInstitution decision- BurdenDenied
“Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites MarkmanPatents in suitUS 8,989,952 - College Products, Inc. v. Intirion CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 7, 2023 · IPR2023-01043 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petitioner’s earlier Iowa declaratory judgment action challenging the patents triggered the § 315(a)(1) bar.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“II. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards Section 315(a)(1) of 35 U.S.C. states that “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent.” Section 315(a)(3) states that “[a] counterclaim challenging the validity of a claim of a patent does not constitute a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of a patent for purposes of this subsection [section 315(a)].”” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“their declaratory judgment action included counterclaims to infringement allegations under § 315(a)(3) because the declaratory judgment complaint was filed after and in response to infringement allegations. Avigilon, Paper 11, 10. The Board determined that “a counterclaim typically is asserted in an existing civil action, in contrast to a complaint, the filing of which begins a civil action.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 (defining counterclaims as distinct from pleadings, including a complaint, set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 7); Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”)). The Board also noted the definition of “counterclaim” as “a defendant’s claim in opposition to or as a setoff against the plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 11 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)).” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,495,374 - Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Surgetech LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00735 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and failed to identify its grounds and supporting evidence with particularity.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Even when that standard is satisfied, however, the Board has discretion to deny institution.4” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Accordingly, we find that the Petition falls short of the requirement that it present “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). In our view, the large number of grounds is far out of proportion with the number of claims and the complexity of the issues involved. This excessiveness indicates that it would impose an undue burden for Patent Owner to respond to and for the Board to resolve all of the grounds asserted in the Petition. Moreover, in addition to the number of grounds asserted, Petitioner’s arguments in support of those grounds are unclear and impossible to discern. Petitioner does not separately discuss each individual ground, but instead lumps together the discussion of all grounds under a single heading. This grouping together of multiple grounds obscures the specific arguments advanced and the claims challenged in each individual ground. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not adequately explain these multiple-reference combinations, or why ordinarily skilled artisans would be motivated to combine them in the manner recited. In these circumstances, we determine that denial is appropriate because the Petition asserts voluminous and excessive grounds and fails to identify them with the requisite particularity. See Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC, 860 Fed. Appx. 708, 713 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“It is not the Board’s job to cobble together assertions from different sections of a petition or citations of various exhibits in order to infer every possible permutation of a petitioner’s arguments. Arguments in a petition must be made with particularity, not opacity”). We further determine that Petitioner fails to” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would at minimum have a bachelor’s degree in software/computer/electrical engineering, computer science, or industrial engineering and management including with respect to systems for dynamically managing inventory and pricing of transportation services or other types of inventory, or the equivalent.” Pet. 16. Petitioner also contends “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant inventory and pricing management experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–18). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill identified by Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill because, on the current record, it is consistent with the level of skill at the time of the claimed invention reflected by the ’598 patent and the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In sum, rather than present its challenges with particularity, the Petition simply reproduces large excerpts from multiple references while improperly incorporating by reference hundreds of pages from an expert declaration that frequently includes conclusory assertions. See, e.g., Ex 1003 ¶¶ 162, 188, 201, 226, 227, 240, 250, 264, 274, 282, 292, 302, 309, 318, 326, 332, 341, 363, 384, 387, 416, 428, 444, 456, 458, 476, 495, 504, 511, 521, 535, 633, 641 (stating in substantially similar terms that it “would have been routine to make such an implementation choice,” and “clear it results with a reasonable expectation of success”). Accordingly, we find that the Petition falls short of the requirement that it present “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). In our view, the large number of grounds is far out of proportion with the number of claims and the complexity of the issues involved. This excessiveness indicates that it would impose an undue burden for Patent Owner to respond to and for the Board to resolve all of the grounds asserted in the Petition. Moreover, in addition to the number of grounds asserted, Petitioner’s arguments in support of those grounds are unclear and impossible to discern. Petitioner does not separately discuss each individual ground, but instead lumps together the discussion of all grounds under a single heading. This grouping together of multiple grounds obscures the specific arguments advanced and the claims challenged in each individual ground. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not adequately explain these multiple-reference combinations, or why ordinarily skilled artisans would be motivated to combine them in the manner recited.” slip op. at 19
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,334,598 - 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 - Banilla Games, Inc. v. Savvy Dog Systems, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2020 · CBM2020-00014 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because the remaining claims did not establish that the patent claims a financial product or service, as required for CBM review.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate 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) (2018). For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that the challenged patent qualifies as a covered business method patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute a covered business method patent review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the limitations “determining a winning combination” and “testing the game field . . . to ensure that a winning combination more valuable . . .” are not financial in nature. Beginning with “winning combination,” we agree with Patent Owner that “winning,” by itself, is not necessarily monetary in nature. Prelim. Resp. 28. Indeed, other games include the step of determining whether a combination is a “winning combination” or not without necessarily involving any kind of prize or payout. See id. at 29–30. Instead, as is shown in the ’223 patent, some additional step after the determination of who won is necessarily if there is going to be some monetary payout corresponding to the win. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6 (showing Step 630 of “Redeem Payout and Credit Balance”), Fig. 8 (showing Step 820 of “Redeem Payout and Credit Balance”), 6:34–40 (explaining a player “may” redeem points earned in the game for cash). Petitioner identifies nothing in the specification requiring that money be paid for just winning. Moreover, the ’223 patent makes clear that the games are intended broadly for “entertainment” and “amusement” and not just for gambling. See id. at 1:13–15 (explaining patent is related to “amusement and entertainment electronic gaming”). As Patent Owner explains, the ’223 patent expressly discusses the use of the games in Ohio, which prohibits gambling, but permits the use of games of skill for entertainment purposes. See Prelim. Resp. 52–58 (discussing Ohio’s laws in detail); Ex. 1001, 1:18–33 (describing Ohio’s laws prohibiting gambling, but allowing “games of skill”). Thus, at best, “winning combination” relates only to the possibility that a monetary payout could be received, not that a player necessarily will receive anything of monetary value for playing the game. This possibility is insufficient to meet the financial product or service requirement. See Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1382 (noting “it cannot be the case that a patent covering a method and corresponding apparatuses becomes a CBM patent because its practice could involve a potential sale of a good or service” and “[i]t is not enough that a sale has occurred or may occur, or even that the specification speculates such a potential sale might occur”).” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,736,223 - Microsoft Corporation v. Science Applications International CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2020 · IPR2019-01311 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied the petitions because the government was Microsoft's privy and had been served with infringement complaints more than one year before filing; it also denied review under § 314(a).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for patent ownerDecided for patent owner
“The evidence here shows that the government and Petitioner share such interests. Before requesting inter partes review, the government had a preexisting, established relationship with Petitioner. In particular, Patent Owner has an ongoing infringement lawsuit against the government in the Court of Federal Claims. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1025, (“the Complaint”)). Petitioner entered into the Contract with the government to develop a system incorporating the allegedly infringing feature. Id. Therefore, both Petitioner and the government share a common interest in canceling the allegedly infringed claims.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“existing substantive legal relationship. This provides at least one ground of nonparty preclusion under Taylor. We further determine, as discussed below, that two other Taylor factors support our privity determination. 2. “where special statutory schemes foreclose successive litigation by the nonparty” A special statutory scheme applies here under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which bars institution of an IPR if a “privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent” more than one year before the petition was filed. Moreover, we note that the government, according to a recent Supreme Court case, is not a “person” that can file a Petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311. Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019). Thus, Petitioner’s filings are the only filed Petitions from which the government could benefit, because the government could not file its own petition in light of the June 10, 2019, Return Mail decision.” slip op. at 11
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“D. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER SECTION 314(A) Institution of inter partes review is discretionary. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018) (“[Section] 314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question whether to institute review . . . .” (emphasis omitted)); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). “[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even if Petitioner and the government were not in privity, we would exercise our discretion to deny review to avoid any concerns that the government is obtaining a benefit to which it is not permitted under Return Mail.” slip op. at 13
- ExcludeGranted
“All papers are available for public access by default. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1). A party may file a concurrent motion to seal, and the information at issue is sealed pending the motion’s outcome. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). For instance, we consider whether the movant has adequately shown that (1) the information sought to be sealed is truly confidential, (2) a concrete harm would result upon public disclosure, (3) there exists a genuine need to rely in the trial on the specific information sought to be sealed, and (4) on balance, an interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having an open record.” slip op. at 14
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,787,012 - PTAB · Jul 1, 2019 · IPR2019-00485 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because ZTE filed a civil action challenging the patent’s validity before filing the petition, barring review under § 315(a)(1).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“For the foregoing reasons, we determine that under the circumstances presented here, institution of inter partes review is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1). Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. In addition, because institution of inter partes review is barred under § 315(a)(1) and this section does not provide an exception for joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion as moot.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that § 315(a)(1) bars institution of inter partes review in this case. There is no dispute that ZTE is the petitioner and a real party-in-interest in this proceeding. See Pet. 1 (identifying ZTE as the petitioner); see also id. at 79 (identifying ZTE as a real party-in-interest). Patent Owner contends, and Petitioner does not dispute, that on October 9, 2018, prior to the December 20, 2018 filing date of the Petition, ZTE filed a complaint for declaratory judgment alleging invalidity of the ’970 patent. Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing ZTE (USA), Inc. v. AGIS Software Devlopment LLC et al., No. 4:18-cv-06185 (N.D. Cal.) (filed October 9, 2018) (“ZTE action”)). Because ZTE filed a civil action challenging the validity of the ’970 patent before the date on which it filed the Petition, we agree with Patent Owner that inter partes review is barred by ZTE’s civil action. 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingDenied
“Unlike 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which provides an exception to the statutory time bar when a request for joinder is filed, nothing in the language of § 315(a)(1) indicates that the time bar does not apply if a party files for joinder. Consistent with the plain language of § 315(a)(1), which does not include a joinder exception, the Board has expressly held that a motion for joinder does not exempt a petitioner from the statutory bar under this section. Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Colas Sols. Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., Case IPR2018-00243, slip op. at 6, 9 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2018) (Paper 10) (informative)).” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,213,970 - Twilio Inc. v. Telesign CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 27, 2017 · CBM2016-00099 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the patent did not qualify as a covered business method patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“For the foregoing reasons, based on the record presented and particular facts of this proceeding, Petitioner has not established that the ’792 patent claims a method or apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. Therefore, the ’792 patent does not qualify as a “covered business method patent” under § 18(d)(1) of the AIA, and we do not institute a covered business method patent review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims. III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of the ’792 patent.” slip op. at 14
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“For the foregoing reasons, based on the record presented and particular facts of this proceeding, Petitioner has not established that the ’792 patent claims a method or apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. Therefore, the ’792 patent does not qualify as a “covered business method patent” under § 18(d)(1) of the AIA, and we do not institute a covered business method patent review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 14
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,300,792 - 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.