- Caption Health, Inc v. University Of British ColumbiaInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-01066 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, including failure to show the claimed image-receiving quality-assessment neural network.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’591 patent. Thus, we do not institute this inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Because Petitioner’s formulation is supported by declaratory testimony and appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art and the ’591 patent, and because Patent Owner does not provide any supporting evidence, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–33. Our decision would be the same regardless of the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s formulations.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties do not propose any express claim construction. Pet. 11– 12; Prelim Resp. 17. We also determine that no express claim construction is necessary for our Decision, apart from that discussed in our below analysis. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms in controversy must be construed “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner also fails to provide sufficient rationale and a reasonable expectation of success in combining Krishnan and Lee to arrive at a quality assessment neural network configured to receive an image. See Pet. 34–37. For example, the Petition lacks an explanation of why a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Krishnan’s quality assessment neural network to be configured to receive an image, instead of extracted features, in view of Lee’s image-receiving category classifying neural network. Id. Without such further explanation, Petitioner’s challenge falls short. Petitioner’s argument that neural networks for image quality assessment were “well-known” is not persuasive—it does not address the particular scope of limitation 1i, which also requires that the neural network is configured to receive images. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 47–51, 118; Exs. 1017, 1023, 1024, 1026). Petitioner’s argument that combining Krishnan and Lee “would merely amount to applying known work from the field . . . to yield predictable results” is not persuasive because the Petition ties this reasoning to modifying Krishnan with Lee’s view-category-specific assessment parameters, not modifying Krishnan’s quality assessment neural network to receive images instead of extracted features. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 126). Lastly, we note Petitioner’s expert’s discussion regarding neural networks for image quality assessments. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 43–53 (citing Exs. 1010, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1023, 1024, 1026). However, the Petition does not explain how this evidence demonstrates that the proposed combination teaches or suggests a quality assessment neural network configured to receive images, or that such would have been obvious in the context of the claimed invention. See Pet. 32–37.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,129,591 - Clearcorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00814 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim over the asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any objective indicia of nonobviousness.7 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness determination requires finding a reason to combine accompanied by a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed in the challenged patent. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–20.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“tripping” as “any motion of a tooth in any direction other than directly toward the desired final position.” Ex. 1004, 4:12–13. Chishti-511 teaches minimizing round-tripping (“teeth are moved in the quickest fashion with the least amount of round-tripping”), but acknowledges that “[r]ound-tripping is sometimes necessary to allow teeth to move past each other.” Id. at 4:9–15. In an attempt to counter Patent Owner’s teaching away arguments, Petitioner relies heavily on Chishti-511’s statement that “[r]ound[-]tripping is sometimes necessary.” See Pet. 29–30; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 83 (Dr. Yadav relying on Chishti-511). This reliance is unavailing, because as noted above, Chishti-511 defines “round-tripping” more broadly than is claimed here. Indeed, in the ’444 IPR, the Board stated that “the ‘round tripping’ described in Chishti ’511 is something different than the ‘round tripping’ required by the ’444 patent.”10 Ex. 1008, 16. Despite being aware of this prior finding 10 In the ’444 IPR, the Board employed the same construction of “round-tripping” that we use here. Compare Ex. 1008, 6, with Section II.C supra. (see Pet. 6), Petitioner here fails to address the difference between Chishti- 511’s round-tripping and the claimed round-tripping. That is, Petitioner places great weight on Chishti-511’s statement that “round-tripping is sometimes necessary,” but has not established that Chishti-511 contemplates round-tripping as claimed, as opposed to some other, different movement pattern encompassed by Chishti-511’s broader statement about round-tripping.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“discussion of “need[ing] collision-free treatment paths,” skilled artisans would have turned to Becker. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:15–22). But on this record, and especially in view of the teachings away from round-tripping, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that a skilled artisan would have combined Becker’s movement pattern with the Chishti systems and Sachdeva. In particular, the Petition and supporting materials lack sufficient argument and evidence for us to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Becker’s movement pattern in the context of an aligner treatment. Becker is a textbook relating to the orthodontic treatment of impacted teeth. Ex. 1006, 1 (Title). Patent Owner correctly states that “Becker is a different orthodontic treatment modality compared to the Chishti references,” using “braces and numerous brackets, wires, and rubber bands, with the wire-and-bracket systems being attached directly and permanently to the teeth.” Prelim. Resp. 21–22; see also supra Section II.D.4. “Becker involves traditional orthodontic practice: manual, by-eye adjustment of its archwires, elastic thread, and palatal wires by a treating orthodontist in repeated office visits.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Chishti-511, in contrast, uses “treatment planning software” to “pre-stag[e] a series of tooth positions from which a sequence of appliances can be manufactured.” Id. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that “Becker at best shows that round-tripping was an option in limited circumstances involving wire-and-bracket treatment.” See Prelim. Resp. 3. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that using aligners to effect Becker’s tooth transposition “would be appropriate or even possible.” Id. at 22. As Patent Owner correctly notes, Petitioner does not point to any teaching in Becker regarding aligner treatment or corresponding treatment planning software. Id. at 23. Nor are we directed to any portions of Chishti-511, Chishti-876, or Sachdeva that mention using aligners to transpose teeth. These omissions are important because “[i]n contrast to treatment with braces, in which wires are manually adjusted by the orthodontist to move teeth reactively, aligner treatment involves treatment planning in which a detailed path of teeth is calculated in advance.” Id. at 4. Given these differences, Petitioner has not persuasively explained why Becker’s tooth movement pattern and mechanism would have been of interest to a skilled artisan who was” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“as of the August 30, 2006 claimed priority date would have been part of an interdisciplinary team. This team would have included a member with an advanced degree related to dentistry (e.g., BDS, MDS, DDS, DMD) with experience in orthodontics, including 1–3 years of orthodontic training or equivalent experience, and experience using clear aligners. The team may have also included members with a degree in a technical area related to software, graphics, computers, or a related discipline. This technical team member would have had 1–3 years of software development experience. For all team members, more education could substitute for experience and vice versa. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–24; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 23–25; Ex. 1029; Ex. 1030). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,456,217 - Clearcorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00815 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because ClearCorrect did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–24 would have been obvious over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, Sachdeva, and Becker.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“3. Analysis In view of the arguments and cited evidence, we find on this record that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Becker’s round-tripping with the teachings of the Chishti patents and Sachdeva.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Neither party indicates that any other claim term requires express construction. Only claim terms in controversy need be construed. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no other claim term requires construction.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITA
“Court for the Western District of Texas (see supra Section I.B), they jointly adopted the definition of “round-tripping” set forth in the ’879 patent Specification. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 8; Ex. 1013, 8. The ’879 patent Specification defines “round-tripping” as moving a first tooth out of the path of a second tooth, and once the second tooth has moved sufficiently, moving the first tooth back to its previous position before proceeding to a desired final position of that first tooth. See Ex. 1001, 13:9–13. We adopt this agreed-upon construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,524,879 - Innolux Corporation v. Phenix Longhorn LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00044 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition violated Rule 42.104(b)(3) and did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5, and 6 were unpatentable as obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, Petitioner has not identified corresponding structure for performing the recited functions of “optimizing . . . gamma reference voltage levels using means for executing a predetermined algorithm according to a predetermined criteria and data sensed by . . . at least one sensor, wherein said means for executing said predetermined algorithm is separate from [a] display to achieve [a] desired gamma curve” as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Because Petitioner has not provided constructions, either rebutting the presumption that “means for executing” is a means-plus-function term, or identifying corresponding structure if it is a means-plus-function term, Petitioner has violated Rule 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) “would have had at least a bachelor of science degree in physics, electrical engineering, or the equivalent thereof and three (3) years of experience in circuit design or display technologies.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). According to Petitioner “[s]uch a POSA would have had knowledge of integrated circuits, gamma correction, and storage of gamma correction voltage values within memory, and would have understood how to search available literature for relevant publications.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition for the purposes of the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 12. This assessment is consistent with the ’788 Patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, Petitioner has not identified corresponding structure for performing the recited functions of “optimizing . . . gamma reference voltage levels using means for executing a predetermined algorithm according to a predetermined criteria and data sensed by . . . at least one sensor, wherein said means for executing said predetermined algorithm is separate from [a] display to achieve [a] desired gamma curve” as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Because Petitioner has not provided constructions, either rebutting the presumption that “means for executing” is a means-plus-function term, or identifying corresponding structure if it is a means-plus-function term, Petitioner has violated Rule 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“and 5 recites “means for executing.” Ex. 1001, 7:36–40, 8:35–37. The use of the term “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments (Prelim. Resp. 36–39), the Petition does not address the presumption and, more specifically, the Petition does not provide any argument or evidence as to why the presumption is rebutted. Furthermore, even if we were to consider Petitioner’s newly presented argument that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of ‘means for executing a predetermined algorithm . . . ’ connotes a general-purpose processor, which is understood as structure sufficient to perform the function” (Pet. Reply 5), such argument is not persuasive as it is not supported by evidence earlier presented in the Petition or otherwise. Furthermore, even if the plain and ordinary meaning of means for executing a predetermined algorithm were a general-purpose processor, for a computer implemented means-plus-function term the corresponding structure must be the specific algorithm implemented by the processor as argued by Petitioner. Pet. Reply 6.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,557,788 - PTAB · Apr 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01379 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claim 20, finding that the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial under § 314(a).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“(which we address in more detail below) turns on the determination of the meaning of the claim term “periodically.” We note that the District Court has construed the term “periodically monitor” to mean “monitor at regular intervals of time.” See Sec. II.C below. Given this construction, which we preliminarily agree with at this stage, we cannot agree with Petitioner that the Petition presents “a strong case for obviousness.” Thus, we find that Factor 6 weighs in favor of exercising discretionary denial.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“periodically” as it is used in claim 20, with Petitioner arguing that “periodically’ means “repeated . . . over time” and Patent Owner arguing that “periodically” means “at fixed intervals.” See Pet. 25; Prelim. Resp. 8. Our preliminary determination of the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “periodically” as it is used in claim 20 substantially impacts our view of the merits in this case as this issue is the principal one raised by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 5–22. slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears consistent with the subject matter of the ’996 patent. This is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Martin. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–56. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision, with the exception of the qualifier “at least,” to keep the description from being vague and extending to a level reflecting that of an expert. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 18
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,809,996 - Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 28, 2024 · IPR2023-01406 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7 would be unpatentable over Sormunen and Perlman.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner shows that Sormunen discloses receiving a request from the user for a password and that a person of skill in the art would understand Sormunen’s password to be a passcode as claimed. Pet. 32–33. Petitioner further shows that Sormunen discloses that its method can be applied to obtain a PIN for a bank or credit card. Id. at 19. Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain why one skilled in the art would understand Sormunen’s PIN to be a token. Id.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“At this stage of this proceeding, we determine that no claim terms require express construction in order to determine whether or not to institute inter partes review because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reasoning in support of the proposed combination lacks rational underpinning because combining Sormunen’s password and PIN (both of which are known to the user) would not result in greater security. Moreover, for the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with Petitioner that Sormunen’s PIN is a token. Sormunen’s PIN is nothing more than a numerical passcode provided to a user when a charge card is ordered or when a new PIN is required because a prior PIN has been compromised. Ex. 1004, 9:28, 9:34–10:2. Given that both Sormunen’s password and its PIN are passcodes known to the user, Petitioner’s reasoning that a person of skill in the art would know from Sormunen to combine its password and PIN lacks rational underpinning. Further, Petitioner’s reasoning that a person of skill in the art “would understand that a PIN would commonly be generated by known techniques to produce a randomized string” is not supported by Sormunen, because Sormunen does not disclose a PIN produced by a randomized string. Petitioner’s reliance on Perlman does not cure these deficiencies in Petitioner’s reasoning. Pet. 35–37. Although, we agree with Petitioner that Perlman discloses a token, the Petition does not rely on Perlman’s teachings of a token to replace Sormunen’s PIN.4 Id.” slip op. at 21
Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,993,658 - Sonos, Inc v. Google LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01288 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Rosenberger anticipated any challenged claim or that Rosenberger and Jang rendered claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 12 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Technology, Inc., 815 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had the equivalent of a fouryear degree from an accredited institution (typically denoted as a B.S. degree) in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and approximately 2-4 years of experience in the field of speech processing, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–39). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“construction in a footnote addressing “perform[ing] speech recognition.” Prelim. Resp. 14 n.1 (“Patent Owner does not concede to the correctness of the ITC’s construction of ‘perform[ing] speech recognition,’ particularly its finding that ‘hotword[6] detection’ necessarily includes speech 5 In the Initial Determination of Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (Ex. 2001 (“Initial Determination”)), the plain and ordinary meaning of “perform speech recognition” was construed “to include[] hotword detection” (id. at 49). 6 According to the ’748 patent, a “hotword” is a predetermined audio command or audio trigger such as “Hello phone,” “Okay car,” “Hello device,” “Give me directions,” “what’s the time,” “make a call,” “go silent,” or “play.” Ex. 1001, 2:66–67, 4:12, 5:14–15, 5:40, 9:61–62, 10:6–7, 20:16– recognition.”). Although Patent Owner does not “concede to the correctness” of this construction in this proceeding, Patent Owner does not argue what, if anything, is wrong with this construction. Before the ITC, Patent Owner argued that the plain and ordinary meaning of “[perform/performing] speech recognition” was not broad enough to cover “hotword detection.” See Ex. 2001, 30. The ITC found Patent Owner’s position to be “untenable” because hotword detection “is a form of speech recognition in every ordinary sense.” Id. at 31. We agree with the ITC that the plain and ordinary meaning of performing speech recognition includes hotword detection. Moreover, the ’748 patent describes using speech recognition for hotword detection. Ex. 1001, 4:57–63 (“[A]udio input modules may be operable to utilize speech recognition techniques . . . to determine whether the obtained audio input includes a predetermined audio command.”). We apply the plain and ordinary meaning and consider the meaning of “perform/performing speech recognition” to include hotword detection. 17, 20:20–21, 24:29–30, 24:38–39, 24:40–41, 24:43–44, 24:51, 25:3–4. The ’748 patent further provides:” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“positions relating to this limitation. See Pet. 33–34 (Ex. 1003, 8:20–39); Prelim. Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:20–32). The cited passage in Rosenberger states: Upon receiving and recognizing a speech trigger phrase and determining that it is in a better position to handle subsequent user interaction than any other device that simultaneously recognized the same speech trigger phrase (see device coordination discussion below) . . . the device beeps, changes its status light 34 or plays a prerecorded or synthesized audio message (e.g. "How may I help you?") through speaker 19 and/ or 20 to prompt the user to say one of the speech commands from a known vocabulary or grammar stored in the speech pattern memory 14. Ex. 1003, 8:20–32 (emphasis added). This passage indicates speech recognition to recognize the trigger phrase (i.e., hotword detection) is performed by all the devices that receive the trigger phrase prior to any coordination determination. This passage supports Patent Owner’s argument and contradicts Petitioner’s contention that Rosenberger discloses this limitation. We agree with Patent Owner that the flaw in Petitioner’s reasoning is that the devices disclosed in Rosenberger upon receiving a spoken audio input do not make any determination as to whether speech recognition, particularly hotword detection, should be performed. All the devices perform speech recognition by performing hotword detection before the coordination determination is made. See Ex. 1003, 8:20–32.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,632,748 - Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00583 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7, 22–26, 28, 29, 31, and 32 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). 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.” For the reasons explained below, we deny institution of an inter partes review of the ’705 Patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a[t] least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field, and two years of experience working with wireless networks, and related technologies.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 59–61). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 27. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision. B. Claim Construction” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “given the close correlation and substantial identity between the references and the ’705 Patent the Board need not construe any of the terms to resolve the underlying controversy, as any reasonable construction reads on the prior art.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner submits that the terms recited in the Challenged Claims can each be given its” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“equivalence of optimizing a parameter, such as in Madebrink and Feuerstein, with the claimed “a deviation from the setting requirement based on an operational requirement deduced from the use of the radio network.” Prelim. Resp. 29. Patent Owner’s declarant testifies that there is no equivalence between optimizing a parameter and checking a parameter on the basis of a rule having a deviation from a setting requirement. Ex. 2008 ¶ 120. We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not present specific evidence indicating that Feuerstein’s teaching of optimizing a parameter for a given environment is the same as checking the parameter on the basis of a rule comprising a deviation from a setting requirement. See Pet. 17–26. In fact, the evidence of record indicates that optimizing a parameter does not necessarily require checking the parameter against a rule. Ex. 2008 ¶ 120 (“the ‘rule’ recited in [1a] may reject verification of a modified network parameter even if it has been optimized”). We further agree with Patent Owner that Madebrink and Feuerstein teach optimization based on live traffic, and not based on a “rule,” per se. Prelim. Resp. 30–31 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 122).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,092,705 - Bank Of America, N.A. / Truist Bank et al. v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00367 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because neither asserted obviousness combination showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–3 and 5–7.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we conclude that the Petition fails to establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–3 and 5–7 of the ’658 Patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we deny institution of an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’658 Patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s first articulated reason in support of the proposed combination lacks rational underpinning because 9 Here and throughout the remainder of this Decision, citations to references that are not the basis for the challenge being discussed are omitted. Sormunen does not support the premise that cellular networks and SMS messaging are more secure than computer networks.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not provide adequate support for its assertion that challenge requests via mobile station are more secure than challenge requests that rely on a user account ID. Petitioner identifies no such teaching in Guthrie or Sormunen. Further, we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Reiher’s testimony amounts to no more than a restatement of Petitioner’s argument in the Petition without the support of additional evidence. We, therefore, give this testimony little weight. Xerox, IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–16.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have at least a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent, and at 1 US 6,161,185 to Guthrie et al., issued December 12, 2000 (“Guthrie”) (Ex. 1007). 2 WO 97/31306, published August 28, 1997 (“Sormunen”) (Ex. 1008). 3 In accordance with the English translation, the inventor is Katou, not Kato. 4 JP 2000-10927 to Katou, published January 14, 2000 (“Katou”) (Ex. 1005). For purposes of this Decision we rely on the English translation of Katou (Ex. 1006). least two years of prior experience with user authentication technologies for computer systems as of the earliest priority date of the ’658 Patent—March 6, 2000. Additional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa. Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). “For the purposes of [the Preliminary] Response only, Patent Owner does not dispute the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) identified in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 10. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’658 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the patent and the cited prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,993,658 - TCT Mobile (US) Inc / TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd et al. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 3, 2022 · IPR2022-00440 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1–48 because neither Dawson alone nor Dawson with Hayashi showed a reasonable likelihood of obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As such, we are persuaded that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its challenge of independent claim 1 as obvious over Dawson.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Additionally, while Petitioner is correct that Figure 3 of Dawson illustrates a “direct connection” between CS (355) and +VDD (390) (Pet. 40– 41), that aspect of the Figure 3 embodiment was not included in Petitioner’s combined embodiment. Petitioner does not rely on the Figure 3 embodiment to teach or suggest all of the elements of independent claim 1, and Petitioner cannot rely on such a connection, only found in the Figure 3 embodiment, unless Petitioner explains how it would be incorporated in the combined embodiment and why one of ordinary skill in the art would have provided for such a connection. Although the Petition provides a rationale for the creation of the combined embodiment, the Petition does not assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the “direct connection” aspect of Figure 3 into the combined embodiment. Similarly, Petitioner also argues that “Figure 6 also shows the second electrode of a capacitor is directly connected to the first line because a POSITA would design the VDD line to be extended to run parallel to data line 220.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 206). This is unavailing because we have no proffered rationale why such line would be extended, with only a conclusory statement provided in the Petition and Dr. Kanicki’s testimony adding nothing additional. The annotated Figure 6 (Pet. 42), provided by Petitioner in the Petition, provides no support for Petitioner’s assertions as it appears that the red line on that figure would tie the source and drain of TFT P3 (610) together, shorting the TFT and rendering it inoperable. We find it difficult to discern Petitioner’s intent or position from the section of the Petition discussing claim element [1.18], but we nonetheless can determine that it does not appear to be supported by any recognizable evidence.” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,208,717
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.