- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,462,942 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 KSRPatents in suitUS 11,462,942 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 KSRPatents in suitUS 11,316,371 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01093 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 2, 4, and 18 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 fintivDenied
“Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. In evaluating the Fintiv factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review,” recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that 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.” 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 inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner reports that it “believes that no special constructions are necessary to assess whether the challenged claims are unpatentable over the asserted prior art.” Pet. 5 (citing Baker Decl. ¶ 68). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position or discuss claim construction. Therefore, we determine there are no claim terms that need to be construed at this stage.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“patent would have possessed “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline,” and would have had “two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems,” with additional education supplementing “practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Baker Decl. ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. We regard Petitioner’s description as consistent with the challenged patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,201,500 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Digital Doors, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00969 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21–23, and 27, finding Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition lacked compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. In evaluating the Fintiv factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review,” recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that 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.” 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 inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We do not see compelling evidence from Petitioner that the extracting/parsing data limitation is taught or suggested by Bossemeyer. As discussed supra, in Section II.C, the ’987 patent discloses extraction occurring as an initial step in which a filter removes or extracts security-sensitive data from a data object prior to storage. See Ex. 1001, 19:45–49, Fig. 1A. In contrast, Bossemeyer discloses a “partitioned” memory (see Fig. 3, reproduced supra in Section II.E.1), but does not disclose extracting, i.e., filtering or separating, security sensitive information from source data to obtain extracted data and remainder data. See Easttom Decl. ¶ 29 (“Bossemeyer is entirely silent as to where the information stored in the central server comes from, the form it takes before it gets to the central database server, or how the different pieces of information end up in the different partitioned areas of memory.”). Petitioner points to no disclosure or suggestion that the “proprietary” and “limited access” information in Bossemeyer’s database has been filtered or separated from the “public” information, so as to result in “extracted data” and “remainder data,” as recited in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“repeatedly refers to Bossemeyer’s “partitioned” database server and attempts to equate “partitioning” with “extraction.” See, e.g., Pet. 24 (“Bossemeyer partitions or separates (e.g., extracts), user data into subsets of extracted data, e.g., limited access information and/or proprietary information, and remainder data, e.g., public information.”) (emphases and color highlighting omitted). We do not find this argument compelling. We agree with Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Easttom, who testifies, “a partitioned memory does not Dr. Easttom explains, a partitioned memory “merely refers to memory with different areas reserved for different types of information.” Id. Petitioner argues that, to the extent Bossemeyer does not explicitly disclose “extracting data,” a person of ordinary skill would have understood that, when Bossemeyer’s central data base server “partitions” user information in terms of accessibility, Bossemeyer teaches “separating sensitive information from user data.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:17–20). We find the reference in Bossemeyer to “partitions” is not a compelling disclosure of extracting, e.g., filtering or removing, security sensitive data from a data object prior to storage. We agree, instead, with Dr. Easttom, that this disclosure in Bossemeyer is “merely referring to the act by the memory partitions of keeping different pieces of information separate from each other, not removing some pieces of data from a larger whole.” Easttom Decl. ¶ 32. He concludes that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood that the extracting/parsing process of the ’987 Patent is vastly different than the act of ‘partitioning’ either as used in Bossemeyer or as used in the art at the time.’” Id. ¶ 34.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,349,987 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Digital Doors, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00971 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims 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
“1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020 00019, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. In evaluating the Fintiv factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review,” recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor.” Id.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 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
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Dr. Zadok’s testimony provides compelling evidence that this limitation is met by Bossemeyer. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 194–211. We agree with Patent Owner that much of Dr. Zadok’s testimony is based on assumptions that he does not support with facts. Prelim. Resp. 34–41. For example, he testifies, without factual support, that “[t]he system of Bossemeyer retrieves remainder data (e.g., public information such as a customer’s name), retrieve [sic] extracted data (e.g., proprietary or limited access information such as credit card numbers and account PIN/numbers), and then logically merges these pieces of information (i.e., reconstruct the original information to appear as before it was split into different security categories).” Ex. 1003 ¶ 207 (emphases and color coding omitted). Dr. Zadok provides no citation to Bossemeyer, and we see no disclosure that Bossemeyer’s system “logically merges” public information, such as a customer’s name, with proprietary or limited access information, such as credit card numbers and account PIN/numbers. Id. Dr. Zadok even admits that “Bossemeyer does not explicitly state that the ¶ 208. Nevertheless, he speculates (without support) that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that such logical merging would have been obvious to take place for the (secure) transaction to succeed.” Id. Similarly, we are not persuaded by Dr. Zadok’s testimony, referring to an example from Bossemeyer involving access to medical data (Ex. 1005, 5:6–15), that “Bossemeyer discloses permitting reconstruction of some of a user’s medical data (e.g., data including the user’s medical alerts 212, and insurance and prescription information 214) and permitting reconstruction of all of user’s data (e.g., data further including the user’s medical history 216) with additional authorization.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 210 (emphases and color highlighting omitted). We find that Dr. Zadok’s testimony is speculative, hindsight-biased, and unsupported by Bossemeyer, which does not disclose or suggest any such logical merging of data. See, e.g., Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that an articulated reasoning “is especially important to guard against the dangers of hindsight bias”). See Ex 2004 ¶¶ 47–56 (challenging Dr. Zadok’s assumption of merging data in Bossemeyer).” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, and approximately two years of experience “[l]ess professional experience can be substituted by additional education and vice versa. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–113). 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 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,721,344 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Digitaldoors, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · IPR2023-00967 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claim 81 because 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
“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 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“compelling-merits question requires a higher standard of proof, ‘highly likely to prevail,’ than the statutory standard for institution, ‘reasonably likely to prevail.’” Prelim. Resp. 48. Patent Owner asserts that the Petition is deficient because Bossemeyer is not analogous art to the ’825 patent. Id. at 2, 16–23. Patent Owner contends also that Bossemeyer and Glick fail to teach the claimed “extracted data” and “reconstruction” claim elements discussed infra. Id. at 2, 23–41. Finally, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to provide sufficient motivation to combine Bossemeyer and Glick. Id. at 42–47. slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther
“repeatedly refers to Bossemeyer’s “partitioned” database server and attempts to equate “partitioning” with “extraction.” See, e.g., Pet. 35 (“Specifically, in Bossemeyer, user data is partitioned, e.g., extracted, into limited access information and/or proprietary information, and public information.”) (color highlighting omitted). We do not find this argument compelling. We agree with Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Easttom, who testifies, “a partitioned memory does not imply or suggest extraction.” Easttom Decl. ¶ 29. As Dr. Easttom explains, a partitioned memory “merely refers to memory with different areas reserved for different types of information.” Id.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). construction (Pet. 11) and Patent Owner’s choice not to state its position on claim construction. We determine we need not expressly construe any claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,313,825 - ROKU, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-01552 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 17–21, 25–35, 59–69, 85–89, and 93–99 because the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Ex. 2011, 3 (footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential)). Roku’s stipulation, however, falls far short of a Sotera-type stipulation that would bar Roku from pursuing any grounds in the parallel district court proceeding that could have reasonably been raised before the Board. Thus, while Roku’s stipulation would prevent some overlap between this proceeding and the parallel district court proceeding, the scope of the stipulation does not rise to the level contemplated in the Fintiv Memo. Thus, although we find that the fourth Fintiv factor weighs somewhat against discretionary denial of institution, this does not end our analysis because Roku has declined to submit a Sotera-type stipulation.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“§ 42.4(a), we may only institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2022). 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 below, we exercise our discretion not to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we find it a close issue whether Ozawa discloses a “portable device” as recited in unchallenged independent claims 1, 39, and 73, which is also part of the challenged dependent claims. In claims 1 and 39, the term “portable device” is introduced in the preamble and appears throughout the claims. See Ex. 1101, 32:46–33:30, 36:32–37:11. In claim 73, a “portable device” is recited as an element of the claimed system. See id. at 39:44–40:20. In its Petition, Roku assumes, for its arguments, that the claim preambles, including the term “portable,” are limiting. See Pet. 24, 27–28. In its Preliminary Response, IOENGINE argues that “[t]he term ‘portable device’ is limiting because it provides antecedent basis for 11 instances in the body of claim 1,” and because the specification specifically focused on portability as an important feature of the invention. Prelim. Resp. 11–13. We agree with IOENGINE that the claim preambles are limiting at least to the extent that “portable” is a necessary feature of the portable device recited in the claims. We also point out that in the parallel district court litigation, the court specifically held that the preambles of claims 1, 39, and 73 are limiting. See Ex. 2008, 29–31. We agree with the district court’s analysis.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“In light of IOENGINE’s preliminary arguments, we find the issue of whether Ozawa discloses a “portable device” to be a close issue. The 9 IOENGINE erroneously identifies the Preliminary Infringement Contentions as Exhibit 1116 rather than Exhibit 1118. evidence does not plainly support Roku’s position at this stage, and the question would need to be further developed at trial. Because the “portable device” limitation is part of all challenged claims, Roku would need to prevail on this issue to prevail on any claim at trial. Thus, we determine that Roku has not, at this stage, presented a “compelling, meritorious challenge[]” to any claim of the ’584 patent. Ex. 2011, 4. Accordingly, we find that the sixth Fintiv factor does not weigh against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,972,584 - ROKU, Inc. v. Ioengine, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-01551 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under Fintiv, citing the advanced parallel district court case and finding no compelling merits challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“We agree with IOENGINE that trial in the parallel district court proceeding is likely to be about six months prior to the due date for our final written decision if we were to institute an inter partes review. Because the district court would address issues relating to the validity of the ’584 patent well before we would issue a final written decision, we find that the second Fintiv factor weighs heavily in favor of discretionary denial of institution.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“We agree with IOENGINE that the claim preambles are limiting at least to the extent that “portable” is a necessary feature of the portable device recited in the claims. We also point out that in the parallel district 5 Our compelling-merits analysis relies on the parties’ agreed understanding of the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, which Roku articulates in its Petition. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 60); Prelim. Resp. 8–9; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (the level of ordinary skill is pertinent to claim construction); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966) (the level of ordinary skill is one of the factors to consider when determining obviousness). court litigation, the court specifically held that the preambles of claims 1, 39, and 73 are limiting. See Ex. 2008, 29–31. We agree with the district court’s analysis.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In light of IOENGINE’s preliminary arguments, we find the issue of whether Ozawa discloses a “portable device” to be a close issue. The evidence does not plainly support Roku’s position at this stage, and the question would need to be further developed at trial. Because the “portable device” limitation is part of all challenged claims, Roku would need to prevail on this issue to prevail on any claim at trial. Thus, we determine that Roku has not, at this stage, presented a “compelling, meritorious challenge[]” to any claim of the ’584 patent. Ex. 2011, 4. Accordingly, we find that the sixth Fintiv factor does not weigh against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 17
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,972,584 - Nokia Of America Corporation / Ericsson Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 2, 2022 · IPR2022-00755 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and that the challenges to claims 14–19 were not compelling.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Accordingly, this factor weighs heavily in favor of exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In sum, we find that Petitioner’s arguments, and Dr. Fuja’s cited testimony, are not compelling. Accordingly, Petitioner’s showing as to independent claim 14 is less than a “compelling, meritorious challenge[].” In addition, claims 15–19 depend from claim 14, and Petitioner’s arguments for these dependent claims do not cure the above deficiencies for independent claim 14. Pet. 26– 31. Likewise, Petitioner’s arguments for dependent claims 15 and 18 for the remaining ground (Kotecha combined with R1-081126) do not cure the above deficiencies for independent claim 14. Pet. 31–34. Thus, Petitioner’s showing of unpatentability is not compelling for any of the challenged claims for any of the asserted grounds. VII. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition. VIII. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot reached
“We find that Petitioner’s arguments are not compelling. First, we have doubts as to whether Kotecha (i) teaches a scheme “which utilizes a CQI trigger, a particular MCS value, and other fields present in the uplink grant” or (ii) “encourages [one of ordinary skill in the art] to use fields in addition to the MCS field.” Pet. 23–24. Rather, it appears that Kotecha teaches in its discussion regarding using a CQI trigger and a particular MCS value that “different fields, other than the MCS field, may be reused according to [Kotecha’s] disclosure to clearly signal whether an uplink grant is for only CQI or CQI and data.” See Ex. 1004, 4:23–43 (emphasis added). Hence, Kotecha teaches using other fields in lieu of—not in addition to—the MCS field. Id. Moreover, Kotecha’s teachings regarding using “one or more fields” to indicate only CQI or CQI and data identify the CQI request and MCS fields, as examples, without identifying additional fields, nor requiring the use of these fields. See id. at 7:19–22, 8:15–20, Fig. 6. Thus, these teachings also do not provide compelling support for Petitioner’s arguments that Kotecha encourages adding a third field to the CQI request and MCS fields combination. Id. Second, we find uncompelling Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to try using the . . . (RB) assignment field as a further indication of whether to multiplex CQI with data,” which “is one of only seven other possible fields for [one of ordinary skill in the art] to consider.” Pet. 25. This argument is premised on Kotecha encouraging using a third field—and only a third field—in addition to the CQI request and MCS fields, which, as we discuss above, Kotecha does not. Rather, choosing any three, for example, of the nine fields in the uplink grant would yield 84 possible combinations. See Ex. 1004, 1:25–34 (listing nine fields); Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (testifying that “Kotecha identifies nine fields in the uplink grant”). Yet more combinations are possible if combinations having other numbers of fields are employed. “[T]he breadth of these choices and the numerous combinations indicate that these disclosures would not have rendered the claimed invention obvious to try.” Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Rolls–Royce PLC v. United Techs. Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Nor does Petitioner cite to any guidance provided in Kotecha about which combinations of fields would likely be successful in arguing that the claimed three field combination would have been obvious to try. See In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]here a defendant merely throws metaphorical darts at a board filled with combinatorial prior art possibilities, courts should not succumb to hindsight claims of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Third, we do not find compelling Dr. Fuja’s cited testimony, which in our view, and taken as a whole, risks using impermissible hindsight to reconstruct the invention of claim 14. See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” (citation omitted)). For example, the testimony appears to be predicated incorrectly on Kotecha teaching using a third field (i.e., the resource assignment field) in addition to the CQI request and MCS fields, and the testimony instead tracks the claimed three field combination of claim 14. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–79. Moreover, Dr. Fuja opines that “it would have been obvious for [one of ordinary skill in the art] to use the resource assignment field in the uplink grant in addition to the CQI request bit and the MCS field because doing so provides additional flexibility and greater efficiency at no additional cost.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. We find this testimony to be conclusory as there is no factual support underlying Dr. Fuja’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to be obvious. Id. ¶¶ 77–83. Also, claim 14 recites more than just reusing the resource assignment field to indicate whether data should be multiplexed with the CQI report. Ex. 1001, 24:7–14. Rather, claim 14 also recites evaluating whether the indicated number of resource blocks “is smaller than or equal to a determined number of resource blocks.” Id. Kotecha does not teach this, nor does Dr. Fuja address it in a compelling way. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–83.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,385,239
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.