• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00326 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution under § 314(a) based on Fintiv, finding that most factors favored denial and the obviousness challenges did not meet the compelling-merits standard.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “The second, third, and fifth Fintiv factors favor denial. The first factor is neutral, and only the fourth factor weighs slightly against denial. Thus, we determine that the first five Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial, and as such, we assess compelling merits. CommScope, Paper 23 at 5 (“In circumstances where, however, the Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors 1–5 favors denial of institution, the Board shall then assess compelling merits.”). The compelling merits standard is met if “the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo 4. A challenge can only meet this standard “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 at 49 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2022) (precedential) (“OpenSky”).” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(D) Patent Owner also argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution of inter partes review in this case under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because “Mahajan and Danciu constitute the same or substantially the same art that has already been considered by the Patent Office.” Prelim. Resp. 42. However, because we will not be instituting an inter partes review based on our discretion to deny the Petition under § 314(a), we need not determine whether it would be appropriate to discretionarily deny the Petition under § 325(d).” slip op. at 24

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

    “the compelling merits standard, not the “reasonable likelihood” standard of § 314(a). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not show that Mahajan discloses or renders obvious the converted commands limitations of the claims. Particularly, all of the claims require that a media receiver (or computing device) receives a set of commands that is recognizable by the first type of media application and is converted via an API adapter to be recognizable by the first type of media playing application. Petitioner’s reliance on Mahajan’s Figure 3 for disclosing this limitation is not persuasive. Pet. 12–13, 39–41; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 178–179, 182. Mahajan’s Figure 3, with Patent Owner’s annotations added coloring for different platforms and different commands, is reproduced below. Prelim. Resp. 28. Mahajan’s Figure 3, reproduced above with Patent Owner’s added coloring, shows that user-commands 306A–I (red) for server 202’s media platform are genericized by server 202’s RTS media abstraction module 210 (orange) using RTS mapping table 302 and corresponding generic commands 308A–I, 310A–I (grey) are sent to client 204’s RTS media abstraction module 214 (blue), which then converts the generic commands into platform-specific media commands 312A–I (green) for the client 204’s media platform. Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 35–43. More particularly, Mahajan discloses that its “RTS abstraction module 210 can translate the intercepted platform specific media commands into generic or abstracted media commands.” Ex. 1114 ¶ 36 (emphasis added). Next, “[t]he generic media commands can be sent from the server [202]’s RTS media abstraction module 210 to the client [204]’s RTS media abstraction module 214.” Id. Then, “[t]he client [204]’s RTS media abstraction module 214 can translate the generic media commands . . . into media commands that are specific to the client [204]’s media platform 212.” Id. Mahajan also discloses that “server [202]’s RTS media abstraction module 210 can receive media commands that are specific to the server [210]’s media platform 208.” Id. ¶ 37 (emphasis added). Thus, only media commands 312A–I (green) are specific to client 204’s media platform 212, not commands 306A–I, nor commands 308A–I, nor commands 310A–I. See id. ¶¶ 39–41. It appears that Petitioner recognizes such by stating that “Mahajan’s server translates specific commands of a first type to genericized commands, the genericized commands are transmitted, and then Mahajan’s client translates those generic commands to specialized commands of a second type.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex.1114 ¶¶ 35–36, Figs. 1–2) (emphasis added); see also Prelim. Resp. 30 (citing Pet. 34–35, 59, arguing Petitioner concedes Mahajan’s RTS Media Abstraction module of the client converts the commands received by the client from the server). With these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that any conversion of generic commands into platform-specific media commands for Mahajan’s client 204’s media platform 212 (as colorized green in Figure 3 by Patent Owner) is performed on the client 204 side, not on the server 202 side and thus, “Mahajan does not disclose the claimed component receiving a set of converted commands—i.e., commands that have already been converted when they are received.” Prelim. Resp. 27–28. We further agree with Patent Owner’s assessment that “Mahajan teaches that the client receives the generic commands alleged to be in a universal format; it does not disclose commands that are receive[d] in a first format that corresponds to [or is recognizable by] the first type of media playing application, as the claims recite.” Id. at 28; see Pet. 29–31, 39, 41; Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 36, 63. Petitioner appears to agree by stating that in regard to Mahajan’s teachings, 1) commands for a type of media playing application on the server are received at Mahajan’s server, 2) the commands are translated into a universal command, 3) the universal command is transmitted to the client, 4) the client re-translates the universal command, and 5) the new specific command is executed. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 35–36, Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 1102 ¶ 159); see also Prelim. Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 13–14, 63).” slip op. at 20

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,086,934
• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00325 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution under Fintiv because factors 2, 3, 5, and 6 favored denial; factor 1 was neutral and factor 4 weighed slightly against denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “The second, third, and fifth Fintiv factors favor denial. The first factor is neutral, and only the fourth factor weighs slightly against denial. Thus, we determine that the first five Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial, and as such, we assess compelling merits. CommScope, Paper 23 at 5 (“In circumstances where, however, the Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors 1–5 favors denial of institution, the Board shall then assess compelling merits.”). The compelling merits standard is met if “the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo 4. A challenge can only meet this standard “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 at 49 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2022) (precedential) (“OpenSky”).” slip op. at 13

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

    “the compelling merits standard, not the “reasonable likelihood” standard of § 314(a). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not show that Redford discloses or renders obvious the converted commands limitations of the claims. Particularly, all of the claims require that a media receiver (or computing device) receives a set of commands that is recognizable by the first type of media application and is converted (via an API adapter) to be recognizable by the first type of media playing application. To the extent that Petitioner relies on Redford’s Figure 11H for disclosing this limitation, such reliance is unavailing. Pet. 27, 40. Redford’s Figure 1H is reproduced below.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Petitioner does not explain how Redford’s Authority Server 282 of Figure 2B or Redford’s computer system 250 of Figure 3A converts the command so that the command is received by Redford’s set-top or internetenabled television 303 of Figure 3A, or how it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Redford’s system to have done so. In short, we have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions that Redford’s VideoPlay is a command that is converted at computer system 250 and that the VideoPlay command is sent to and received by television 303, but do not find such contentions supported by the cited disclosure of Redford. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 159); id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 186), id. at 51–52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 227–228); Ex. 1005:40:56–41:2. Much of Petitioner’s contentions and Mr. Lett’s testimony rely on Redford’s disclosure of its settop API (Ex. 1005, 40:56–58), but neither Petitioner nor Mr. Lett provides sufficient evidence to show that Redford’s API converts the command at computer system 250 or at server authority 282 such that a converted command is received by television 303, as the claims require. Id. The addition of Bartfeld and/or Gonze does not remedy this deficiency. Petitioner relies on Bartfeld for teaching “creating an assigned unique identifier on a television for use by a telephone device of a user.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 139). Petitioner relies on Gonze for teaching that it was known that “display devices were enabled with the capability to receive information concerning any one of a plurality of media playing applications.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 166). Thus, Petitioner does not explain how Bartfeld or Gonze remedies the above-discussed deficiencies of Redford.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelOther
  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,086,934
• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00323 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–20, finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition lacked compelling merits; it also denied based on multiple petitions.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “The second, third, and fifth Fintiv factors favor denial. The first factor is neutral, and only the fourth factor weighs against denial. Thus, we determine that the first five Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial, and we now assess compelling merits. CommScope, Paper 23 at 5 (“In circumstances where, however, the Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors 1–5 favors denial of institution, the Board shall then assess compelling merits.”). The compelling merits standard is met when “the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo 4. A challenge can only meet this standard “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 at 49 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2022) (precedential) (“OpenSky”).” slip op. at 13

  • Parallel petitionsDenied

    “and purporting to explain differences between the petitions. Paper 3. Petitioner ranks this Petition above the petition in IPR2024-00324. Id. at 1. As discussed above, we do not find that the instant Petition meets the compelling merits standard, but we find that the petition in IPR2024-00324 does meet this standard for at least one claim. Petitioner also argues that certain references are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) that can be antedated by Patent Owner. Paper 3 at 1–2. Petitioner argues that Redford predates the ’751 patent’s earliest priority date by more than a year whereas one of the references in IPR2024-00324 only predates the ’751 by about six weeks. Id. at 2. As Patent Owner points out, however, Petitioner asserts a challenge in IPR2024-00324 that relies only on prior art under § 102(b), which cannot be predated. Paper 10 at 2. Thus, the petition in IPR2024-00324 also provides an advantage in the event of a priority dispute.” slip op. at 23

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

    “In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner’s obviousness challenges based on Redford do not meet the compelling merits standard. Petitioner does not rely on Bartfeld or Gonze to teach the “message” limitations. See Pet. 14–21 (relying on Bartfeld for limitations regarding a synchronization code); id. at 24–36 (relying on Gonze for limitations regarding selecting and controlling a first media player application). 7. Fintiv Determination On balance, the first five Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial, and the Petition does not meet the compelling merits standard of the Guidance Memo. Therefore, we determine that discretionary denial is appropriate in view of the related district court litigation.” slip op. at 22

  • BurdenNot reached

    “As noted above, our inquiry is directed to whether the Petition meets the compelling merits standard, not the “reasonable likelihood” standard of § 314(a). On this record, we agree with Patent Owner.” slip op. at 20

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,048,751
• T-Mobile USA, Inc. / AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. Cobblestone Wireless LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00136 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR on challenged claim 1 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “Thus, in circumstances where the Board determines that the other Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial, the Board shall decline to discretionarily deny under Fintiv without reaching the compelling merits analysis. In circumstances where, however, the Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors 1–5 favors denial of institution, the Board shall then assess compelling merits. Id. at 4–5. In this case, Fintiv factors 1–5 favor denial. Specifically, weighing factors 1–5 in this case, we find that the approximately 8-month delay between the estimated trial date and the deadline for a final written decision in this IPR (factor 2), the progress of and investment made by the parties and the Court in the parallel district court case (factor 3), and the fact that Petitioner is also a party in the District Court Litigation (factor 5) outweigh Petitioner’s stipulation mitigating the concerns about overlap between the two proceedings (factor 4). Additionally, we find that factor 1 is neutral. Thus, we address whether the merits of Petitioner’s case are compelling.” slip op. at 19

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that it is appropriate for us to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution in this proceeding. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review based on the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on the present record, Petitioner has not presented a compelling, meritorious case that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Petitioner bases its case upon a claim construction that it ascribes to Patent Owner, and then expressly criticizes as being inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language and the ’347 patent Specification. Pet. 14–15. Additionally, Petitioner does not provide reasoning or evidence showing why the applied construction is correct, and Patent Owner does not agree with the construction in the Preliminary Response. Id. Under these facts, Petitioner has failed to set forth a sufficient basis for us to find a compelling case of unpatentability. Our conclusion in this regard is consistent with the Board’s prior decisions in Hologic, Orthopediatrics, and Samsung, upon which Patent Owner relies. See Prelim. Resp. 10–14. Moreover, we find that the contrary cases upon which Petitioner relies are inapposite here because they involved alternative constructions advanced by the petitioner. For example, in 10X Genomics, the Board explained that: [E]ven if our rules and guidance were correctly interpreted as prohibiting a petitioner from relying solely on a claim construction it believes is incorrect, that is not what Petitioner has done here. Petitioner proposes alternative claim constructions and presents at least one ground of unpatentability for each construction. 10X Genomics, Paper 8 at 22 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Donnelly, also cited by Petitioner, the petition offered alternative constructions—the construction proposed by the patent owner in district court and the “proper construction” that the petitioner believed was the correct one. Donnelly, Paper 2 (Petition) at 29–33 (identifying alternative constructions of “grip portion”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not made a compelling, meritorious showing that “path parameter information,” as required by the challenged claims, is disclosed by or would have been obvious over Sesia. As a result, factor 6 does not weigh in favor of institution.” slip op. at 23

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “Based on the present record, Petitioner has not presented a compelling, meritorious case that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Petitioner bases its case upon a claim construction that it ascribes to Patent Owner, and then expressly criticizes as being inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language and the ’347 patent Specification. Pet. 14–15. Additionally, Petitioner does not provide reasoning or evidence showing why the applied construction is correct, and Patent Owner does not agree with the construction in the Preliminary Response. Id. Under these facts, Petitioner has failed to set forth a sufficient basis for us to find a compelling case of unpatentability. Our conclusion in this regard is consistent with the Board’s prior decisions in Hologic, Orthopediatrics, and Samsung, upon which Patent Owner relies. See Prelim. Resp. 10–14. Moreover, we find that the contrary cases upon which Petitioner relies are inapposite here because they involved alternative constructions advanced by the petitioner. For example, in 10X Genomics, the Board explained that: [E]ven if our rules and guidance were correctly interpreted as prohibiting a petitioner from relying solely on a claim construction it believes is incorrect, that is not what Petitioner has done here. Petitioner proposes alternative claim constructions and presents at least one ground of unpatentability for each construction. 10X Genomics, Paper 8 at 22 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Donnelly, also cited by Petitioner, the petition offered alternative constructions—the construction proposed by the patent owner in district court and the “proper construction” that the petitioner believed was the correct one. Donnelly, Paper 2 (Petition) at 29–33 (identifying alternative constructions of “grip portion”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not made a compelling, meritorious showing that “path parameter information,” as required by the challenged claims, is disclosed by or would have been obvious over Sesia. As a result, factor 6 does not weigh in favor of institution.” slip op. at 23

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,891,347
• 10x Genomics, Inc. v. President And Fellows Of Harvard CollegeInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01299 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution

  Denied institution on claims 1–12 because the Petition failed to address a disputed § 112(f) construction and the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “II. DENIAL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) Our rules require that a petition set forth “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and, “[w]here the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. [§] 112(f), the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each function.” 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, effective March 16, 2013. Because the ’303 Patent has an effective filing date after March 16, 2013, the AIA version of §§ 102 and 103 apply. Our decision, however, would be the same under either version. 3 Fan et al., US 10,829,814 B2, issued Nov. 10, 2020. Ex. 1005 (“Fan”). 4 Gunderson et al., Decoding Randomly Ordered DNA Arrays, 14 GENOME 870–77 (2004). Ex. 1007 (“Gunderson”). 5 Larsson et al., In situ detection and genotyping of individual mRNA molecules, 7 NAT. METHODS 395–97 (2010). Ex. 1008 (“Larsson”). 6 Bo U. Curry, US 8,765,642 B2, issued Jul. 1, 2014. Ex. 1009 (“Curry”). 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide7 (“CTPG”), which provides guidance to practitioners on our rules, further 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 7

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Decided for patent owner

    “Similarly, here, Petitioner asserts that the phrase “an error detection or correction system” is not governed by § 112(f) and that no construction is necessary. See Pet. 12 (“Solely for the purposes of this IPR, 10x applies Co- Plaintiff’s [(i.e., Vizgen’s)] interpretations of the 303 patent claims from the concurrent litigation.”); see also Ex. 2005, 7 (reciting Vizgen’s proposed construction: “This claim limitation is not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). No construction necessary”). Before the district court, however, Petitioner asserts that the claim phrase is subject to § 112(f), which the district court largely adopted.10 Ex. 1062, 34. Petitioner admitted the claim phrase was in dispute in the Joint Claim Construction Statement filed in district court. Ex. 2005, 4, 7 (identifying “an error detection or correction system” as a disputed claim term). Despite knowing the meaning of the claim phrase is in dispute, Petitioner did not offer a reasoned construction in the Petition. Thus, like the petitioner in Orthopediatrics, Petitioner should have provided reasons why the limitation is not governed by § 112(f) or provided an express construction of the claim phrase. See IPR2018- 01546, Paper 10 at 11. Because Petitioner has the burden to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that at least one claim is unpatentable, our rules require that Petitioner substantively address any claim terms in dispute. Based on the circumstances presented here, by relying solely on Vizgen’s construction for “an error detection or correction system” that “no construction [is] necessary” without further explanation, Petitioner failed to satisfy its burden to set forth “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Thus, we find the Petition is deficient on its face under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), as merely stating “no construction [is] necessary”—while knowing the construction is actually disputed under § 112(f)—is not sufficient for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “Given the coordinated schedule with the related cases, the prior denial of a motion to stay, and the lack of intent by either party to file a motion to stay, we agree with Patent Owner that it is unlikely the district court proceeding will be stayed. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find this factor favors exercising our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 16

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,098,303
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01098 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 12, finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s analysis based on the schedule in the district court’s docket control order. Ex. 2007. The fact that the time-to-trial statistics cited by Petitioner predict that a trial in May 2024 (Pet. 89), a date even earlier than the trial date set in the court’s docket control order, confirms that the schedule set by the district court is credible and should be given weight. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that diligence in filing the Petition “in advance of the one-year bar date and within four months of PO’s infringement contentions in the Texas Litigation” should weigh in favor of institution. Pet. 89. As the Texas Litigation is scheduled to go to trial in August 2024, approximately six months before a final written decision would be entered, we determine that Factor 2 weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28

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

    “Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinarily skilled artisan”) as one having “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. R. Jacob Baker (“Baker Decl.”) ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further states that slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,462,942
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01094 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Fintiv favored discretionary denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence that claims 1–4, 8, and 11–12 were unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “approximately six months before a final written decision would be entered, we determine that Factor 2 weighs in favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section primary with a planar coil would modify Odendaal’s coil to add multiple taps to create multiple section and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 37. The Petition does not address how Odendaal’s planar could would be incorporated to provide this important functionality of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride,” slip op. at 28

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

    “Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section primary with a planar coil would modify Odendaal’s coil to add multiple taps to create multiple section and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 37. The Petition does not address how Odendaal’s planar could would be incorporated to provide this important functionality of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,316,371
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2024 · IPR2023-01099 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 21–26 because the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “It strikes us as inefficient to conduct, in parallel with the Texas Litigation, numerous inter partes reviews of the same seven patents. This is particularly the case here where the best available evidence indicates that the Texas Litigation will go to trial approximately six months prior to when a final written decision would be entered if inter partes review were to be instituted. Thus, this additional reason weighs in favor of discretionary denial. G. Fintiv Conclusion As a whole, the Fintiv factors weigh in favor of discretionary denial of the Petition, with factor 1 being neutral, factors 2, 3, 5, and 6 weighing in favor of discretionary denial and factor 4 weighing slightly against it. However, we “will not deny institution based on Fintiv if there is compelling evidence of unpatentability.” CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., No. IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (“CommScope”). Thus, we now consider the merits of the Petition under this higher standard.” slip op. at 16

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

    “III. ANALYSIS UNDER COMPELLING MERITS STANDARD “[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” Commscope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Put another way, the compelling merits standard is satisfied “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” Id. at 4 (citation omitted). For the reasons explained below, the Petition fails to meet this standard.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “The Petition’s reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would have made the proposed modification, i.e., “to expand/compliment applications compatible with those contemplated by Okada to use thin(ner) devices” (Pet. 20), is not persuasive. Rather, it appears, based on the record presented, that the proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813 (A combination of references is “not a proper ground for rejection” where it “would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown [in the prior art] as well as a change in the basic principles under which [the prior art] construction was designed to operate.”); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (reversing BPAI decision affirming obviousness rejection where a proposed modification to the prior art would have “rendered [it] inoperable for its intended purpose”). For these reasons, the Petition does not present “compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Commscope at 4.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot reached

    “The Petition’s reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would have made the proposed modification, i.e., “to expand/compliment applications compatible with those contemplated by Okada to use thin(ner) devices” (Pet. 20), is not persuasive. Rather, it appears, based on the record presented, that the proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813 (A combination of references is “not a proper ground for rejection” where it “would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown [in the prior art] as well as a change in the basic principles under which [the prior art] construction was designed to operate.”); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (reversing BPAI decision affirming obviousness rejection where a proposed modification to the prior art would have “rendered [it] inoperable for its intended purpose”). For these reasons, the Petition does not present “compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Commscope at 4.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,462,942
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2024 · IPR2023-01096 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 20–23 and 30 because the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition lacked a compelling unpatentability challenge.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “NHK applies to the situation where the district court has set a trial date to occur earlier than the Board’s deadline to issue a final written decision in an instituted proceeding. In a case where, in contrast to the facts present in NHK, the district court has set a trial date after the Board’s deadline to issue a final written decision in an instituted proceeding, the Board may be less likely to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on district court trial timing depending on other factors as set forth below. Fintiv at 3. The instant situation is the former one described above by Fintiv and to which “NHK applies.”” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Here, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “modif[ied] the Okada system to use ‘a receiver coil which has a substantially planar shape and is located parallel to a surface of the portable device’ (and complimented such a design with corresponding planar primary coil).” Pet. 21 (quoting claim 20). Petitioner states that the skilled artisan would have done so “to expand/compliment applications compatible with those contemplated by Okada to use thin(ner) devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶135). The cited declaration testimony repeats this statement and adds that the modification could reduce size and/or weight of a device and, due to the “close proximity of coupling,” could improve power transmission efficiency, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time. Ex. 1002 ¶135.” slip op. at 22

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

    “the Petition, with factor 1 being neutral, factors 2, 3, 5, and 6 weighing in favor of discretionary denial and factor 4 weighing slightly against it. However, we “will not deny institution based on Fintiv if there is compelling evidence of unpatentability.” CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., No. IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (“CommScope”). Thus, we now consider the merits of the Petition under this higher standard. III. ANALYSIS UNDER COMPELLING MERITS STANDARD “[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” CommScope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Put another way, the compelling merits standard is satisfied “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” Id. at 4 (citation omitted). For the reasons explained below, the Petition fails to meet this standard.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. Because Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the ’371 patent and the asserted prior art, and because there is no argument to the contrary at this stage of the proceeding, we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,316,371
• International Business Machines Corporation v. Digital Doors, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00970 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1, 5, 25, 26, 30, and 50 because the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial and the Petition did not present compelling merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–5. As discussed above, factors 1 and 3 are neutral, factors 2 and 5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against discretionary denial. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence of record on factors 1–5 favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 13

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

    “§ 42.4(a) (2023). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not institute an inter partes review (also “IPR”) 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.” However, institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons stated below, we exercise our discretion not to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “provided compelling evidence to support its contention that Bossemeyer, alone or in combination with Merenda, teaches “permitting full or partial reconstruction of said data with corresponding extracted data and remainder data after accessing said respective extract stores” recited in claims 1 and 29.5 5 In view of this determination, we do not need to address Patent Owner’s additional argument that Bossemeyer is not analogous art to the ’482 patent. Prelim. Resp. 16–24. Similarly, we do not need to address Patent Owner’s additional argument that a person of ordinary skill would not have found it obvious to combine Merenda with Bossemeyer. Prelim. Resp. 50–61.” slip op. at 31

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 15

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,552,482

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.