- Netflix, Inc. v. Robocast, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00081 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Netflix had not shown a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 37, or 38 unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“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 decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’451 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We do not see a substantial difference between the parties’ proposals. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). However, our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“we consider whether that construction was intended to encompass varying durations during the creating step or the displaying step. In its opinion, the Microsoft court observed that the defendants in that case argued that “before created,” and that “the ‘duration information’ is a parameter that the user can then interact with in order to vary the display of each resource.” Ex. 1014, 22. Patent Owner, the court continued, argued that “all that is required is for the user to maintain control over the actual presentation of the resource during the ‘displaying’ step, and that no duration information need be provided during the ‘creating a show structure of nodes’ step.” Id. at 22–23. The Microsoft court “agree[d] with [Patent Owner] that the user should be able to vary the duration of the content during show structure playback. This is the ‘interactive’ component of the claim.” Id. at 23; see also Prelim. Resp. 29 (arguing that this reasoning supports Patent Owner’s position that “the claim language expressly requires that the end user be able to ‘vary said duration’ for how long resource content currently ‘is being displayed’ to the user in ‘accordance with said show structure’ to which the resource belongs”). Here, the Microsoft court expressly states that the duration is varied during show structure playback, which is a clear reference to claim 1’s step of “displaying a content corresponding to each of said resources automatically in accordance with said show structure.” The Microsoft court “also finds that some duration information must be provided when the show structure of nodes is created,” that “‘parameter’ is a helpful concept for construction,” and that “the ‘duration information’ may be understood to be synonymous with a ‘parameter,’ as that timing information is the variable that will specify how long a particular content will be displayed.” Ex. 1014, 23. Thus, the Microsoft court construed claim 1 to require providing a variable duration parameter in the creating” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“As noted above, the Microsoft court construed “interactively variable duration information” to mean “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1014, 22. The construction itself suggests that the duration information is varied during display, because it is in the context of resources being displayed sequentially and “the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” As to Escobar, Petitioner contends that “[w]hen playing decision lists/timelines in the authoring tool using Button 174 (invoking subroutine E), the user is the viewer of the content.” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:40–45). Thus, Petitioner appears to contend that, during the process of creating a show structure, the creator is a viewer if the creator can view the edited content corresponding to a node as the show structure is being created. Here, Petitioner would satisfy the “viewer” aspect of the Microsoft court’s construction by pointing to a creator viewing a piece of the show structure during the creating step, although Escobar does not teach that the creator can vary the duration of content while viewing it or that durations can be varied while a show structure (as opposed to a node being created) is being displayed in the displaying step, as discussed in more detail below.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,155,451 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01125 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over Henley or Shoham and Richardson.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). While the elements must be arranged in the same way as is recited in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Identity of terminology between the anticipatory prior art reference and the claim is not required. Prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Certain terms recited in the challenged claims were construed during prior litigation of the ’451 patent, i.e., the parent of the challenged ’932 patent. Ex. 1011 (claim construction order in cases involving Microsoft and Apple); Ex. 2009, 5 (clarification of certain claim constructions on summary judgment). Patent Owner advocates that we adopt such prior constructions in this proceeding, and Petitioner “does not dispute” such constructions. Pet. 10–13; Prelim. Resp. 6–8. We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1011, 16–17; Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 7. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in challenged independent claims 1 and 22, as well as in challenged dependent claim 4, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1011, 2–13; Pet. 11–12; Prelim. Resp. 7. Third, we construe “interactively variable duration information,” which is recited in challenged independent claim 1, as well as challenged dependent claims 2 and 26, as “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1011, 22–23; Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 7.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject and two or more years of experience working with computer networks and the accessing and presentation of networked resources to users in the 1996 timeframe.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 51). Petitioner adds that “[t]his description is approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience and vice-versa.” Id. Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately 3-5 years of professional experience with these topics.” Prelim. Resp. 6. In addition, Patent Owner say that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 28). Both parties support their proposals with testimony by their respective experts. See Ex. 1012 ¶ 51; Ex. 2005 ¶ 28. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“distinction. See Ex. 2005 ¶ 30 (“Henley discloses a ‘video optimized stream server system 10,’ also referred to as ‘media streamer,’ for use by broadcasters to deliver content to end users, or viewers.”). In particular, Dr. Almeroth observes that, in Figure 1 of Henley, reproduced above, system controller 64 is illustrated graphically as connected to multiple user controls 65, but is shown connected only to a single display 66. Id. ¶ 31. This structure, in combination with Henley’s description of the drawing, leads Dr. Almeroth to conclude that user control 65 “corresponds to a ‘set top box[]’” for an end user, and that system controller 64 corresponds to a separate “‘user interface’ for the operator.” Id. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth points to Henley’s description of system controller 64 as “respond[ing] to inputs from user control set top boxes 65 to cause commands to be generated that enable media streamer 10 to access a requested video presentation.” Id.; Ex. 1013, 8:30–32 (emphasis added). Dr. Almeroth also notes Henley’s explanation that “[s]ystem controller 64 is further provided with a user interface and display facility 66 which enables a user to input commands, such as by hard or soft buttons, and other data to enable an identification of video presentations, the scheduling of video presentations, and control over the playing of a video presentation.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 31; Ex. 1013, 8:33–38. These disclosures by Henley support Dr. Almeroth’s conclusion that “[t]his ‘user interface and display facility 66’ is for an operator—not an end user.” See Ex. 2005 ¶ 31. Dr. Almeroth provides additional reasoning to support this conclusion. For example, Henley explains that “[s]ystem controller 64 responds to inputs from user control set top boxes 65 to cause commands to be generated that enable media streamer 10 to access a requested video presentation.” Ex. 1013, 8:30–32. In light of this, because an end user would interact with the set-top box shown as user control 65, Dr. Almeroth reasons that “it would make no sense” for display 66 to be for the end user. Ex. 2005 ¶ 32. We agree with this reasoning. In addition, Dr. Almeroth observes that Henley describes two types of interfaces for media streamer 10, a command line interface and a graphical user interface. Id. ¶ 33 (citing Ex. 1013, 18:47–50). Because the command line interface can be used for “batch” functionality, Dr. Almeroth reasons, and we agree, that the command line interface is for broadcast operators, rather than for end users. Id. With respect to the graphical user interface shown in Figure 8, reproduced above, Dr. Almeroth further reasons that a person of skill in the art would understand that it relates to operator controls, rather than end-user controls, because Henley specifically describes it as showing keys “used to operate the media streamer.” Id. ¶ 34; Ex. 1013, 4:5– 6. In other words, according to Dr. Almeroth, “[t]he graphical user interface corresponds to the command line interface.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 34. Dr. Almeroth’s reasoning is compelling. Notably, Figure 8 shows “Batch” button 130 and “Import/Export” button 132 to “move video data into and out of the media streamer.” See Ex. 1013, 19:20–22, 19:30–31. As Dr. Almeroth testifies, these are not functions that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be available for end users, but are appropriate for broadcast operators: “None of these commands are consistent with those that would be available to an end user of, e.g., a set top box or pay-per-view system.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 35. In light of this compelling testimony, we agree with Patent Owner and find that “Henley . . . does not describe . . . the end user’s interface or controls.” See Prelim. Resp. 22.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,965,932 - Intel Corporation v. Acqis LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2021-01113 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 14–16 and 20–25 under § 325(d), finding the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and no material Office error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Under § 325(d), in “determining whether to institute [an inter partes review], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We determine whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Here, Petitioner has the burden to show that the Examiner erred in determining that Chu ’330 incorporated by reference the ’886 provisional. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - PTAB · Dec 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00608 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Samsung’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied under § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and examiner error was not shown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its petition. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Advanced Bionics, we exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and determined not to institute inter partes review. Dec. 7−26 (citing Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmbh, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential)). As to Part 1 of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determined that the same or substantially the same arguments were presented previously to the Office. Id. at 10−13. Under Part 2 of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determined that Petitioner failed to show that the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’654 patent. Id. at 14−26.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s arguments are new arguments raised for the first time in its Rehearing Request. Petitioner acknowledges that “NRG and Hollmer were not cited in the Petition.” Req. Reh’g 10. Nevertheless, Petitioner alleges that it “could not have anticipated the Patent Owner’s mischaracterization of the Droplets decision, nor the Board’s reliance on this mischaracterization,” and that Petitioner was not authorized to file a reply to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Id.; see also id. at 2−3, fn.1. Petitioner’s new arguments in connection with Hollmer and NRG are improper. As we discussed above, Patent Owner did not mischaracterize and we did not misapprehend Droplets. It was not necessary to authorize Petitioner to file a reply, as we were capable of determining whether Patent Owner mischaracterizes Droplets. As discussed above, Petitioner fails to recognize that the language relied upon by Patent Owner in Droplets is consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 and MPEP § 608.01(p). Although Petitioner relies on MPEP § 608.01(p) in its Petition, Petitioner now in its Rehearing Request for the first time suggests that we should ignore MPEP § 608.01(p) and the case law cited in MPEP § 608.01(p). Pet. 11–12; Req. Reh’g 6−7. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments, after the decision has noted the deficiencies in the petitioner’s original analysis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). It is Petitioner’s burden to identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision to Institute. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked the new arguments that were not presented in the record until after the Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, section 1.57 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations is not a “statute,” but a regulation that became effective on September 21, 2004. See 69 Fed. Reg. 56,482. The ’882 application, which incorporated Chu ’886 by reference, was filed on September 8, 1998, and issued as Chu ’330 on February 5, 2002. Ex. 1005, codes (21), (22), (45), (60), 6:1–7. The ’654 patent, which incorporated the ’882 application by reference, is a reissue of Application No. 09/312,199 (“the ’199 application”) filed on May 14, 1999, now U.S. Patent No. 6,634,777 (“the ’777 patent”), issued on November 4, 2003. Ex. 1001, codes (63), (64); 5:63–67. Both the ’882 application (issued as Chu ’330) and the ’199 application (reissued as the ’654 patent) were filed and issued as patents prior to the effective date, September 21, 2004, of 37 C.F.R. § 1.57. Petitioner does not explain why the applicant should have complied with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57, which did not exist at the time of filing of those applications or issuance of those patents that incorporated by reference Chu ’886 and the ’882 application. Pet. 7–8, 10−17; Req. Reh’g 1−12. We decline to apply 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 retroactively to the incorporation by reference statements submitted in the ’882 application and the ’199 application.” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - PTAB · Oct 7, 2021 · IPR2021-00607 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 14–38 under § 325(d), finding the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and Petitioner failed to show material Examiner error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“[U]nder § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. If the petitioner fails 7 to show that the Office erred, the Director may exercise his or her discretion not to institute inter partes review. Id.; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24 (exercising discretion where “Petitioner has not pointed to error by the Examiner”). 1. Part I – whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Fourth, Petitioner argues that, because the subject matter added from Chu ’886 was not included in any of the applications in the ’140 patent’s priority chain before it was added by amendment in the ’138 application and then filed with the U.S. Application No. 13/294,108 (“the ’108 application”), the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’140 patent claims relying on this subject matter for written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, is the date of filing the ’108 application, November 10, 2011. Pet. 14−17. However, the amendments to the ’138 application were proper because, as discussed above, “[w]hen claims were added to the ’138 application that transformed previously non-essential material into allegedly essential material, Patent Owner submitted an amendment to explicitly set forth the material in the specification,” in accordance with the procedure set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(g) (2007) and MPEP § 608.01(p), 8th Ed. Rev. 8 (July 2010). See Prelim. Resp. 26−30. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’777 patent and the applications in the ’140 patent’s priority chain did not properly incorporate by reference Chu ’330 and Chu ’886, or that the examiner erred in entering the amendments that added the subject matter from Chu ’886 to the ’138 application. As such, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims of the ’140 patent is November 10, 2011. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office and that Petitioner fails to show that “the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu 21 ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’140 Patent.” Accordingly, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24.” slip op. at 21
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - PTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00608 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding substantially the same arguments had been presented before and Petitioner failed to show material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under § 325(d), in “determining whether to institute [an inter partes review], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We determine whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons stated below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’654 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“3. § 325(d) Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office and that Petitioner fails to show that the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the ’654 Patent claims. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review. Advanced Bionics at 8; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review. 26 IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Chu ’886 was not included in any of the applications in the ’654 patent priority chain before the amendments in the ’138 application, the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’654 patent claims relying on this subject matter for written description support under § 112, ¶ 1, is the filing date of the ’108 application, i.e., November 10, 2011, “the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’654 Patent claims relying on this subject matter.” Pet. 15−17. However, the amendments to the ’138 application were proper because, as discussed above, when claims were added to the ’138 application that transformed previously non-essential material into allegedly essential 25 material, Patent Owner submitted an amendment to explicitly set forth the material in the specification in accordance with the procedure set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(g) (2007) and MPEP § 608.01(p) (8th Ed. Rev. 8 July 2010). See Prelim. Resp. 28−33. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’777 patent and the applications in the ’654 patent priority chain did not properly incorporate by reference Chu ’330 and Chu ’886, or that the examiner erred in entering the amendments that added the subject matter from Chu ’886 to the ’138 application. As such, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims of the ’654 patent is November 10, 2011.” slip op. at 25
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial - Nichia Corporation / Osram Opto Semiconductors, Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 15, 2020 · IPR2019-01260 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any anticipation or obviousness challenge to claims 1, 2, 6, and 10.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 21 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Papers 23, 24. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 100(b); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner proposes that the term “base,” recited in independent claim 1 as well as dependent claim 6, be construed to mean “support or foundation,” and that the phrase “integral part of,” recited in dependent claim 2, be construed to mean “a part of a whole.” Pet. 20–24. Patent Owner contends that we “need not rule on Petitioners’ proposed claim constructions, because construction of those terms is not necessary in order to resolve the parties’ dispute.” Prelim. Resp. 8. Although we agree with Patent Owner that resolution of the parties’” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“dispute does not require construction of “base” or “integral part of,” we find it necessary, in light of the parties’ arguments, to consider the meaning of a “thermally conductive region in solderable thermal contact with the thermally conducting base,” recited in independent claim 1. Neither party addresses this phrase as a matter of claim construction, but both parties implicitly proffer a proposed construction in their arguments. See Pet. 41– 43; Prelim. Resp. 35–40. In particular, Petitioner takes the position that “the term ‘solderable’ does not mean that the ‘thermally conductive region’ is to be ‘solderable’ to the ‘thermally conducting base’; rather, ‘solderable’ requires the thermally conductive region to be ‘solderable’ to another structure outside the assembly.” Pet. 41–42. Conversely, Patent Owner contends that “the modifier ‘solderable’ in ‘solderable thermal contact’ . . . applies to the relationship between (1) the ‘thermally conductive region’ and (2) the ‘thermally conducting base.’” Prelim. Resp. 36. First, we find that the plain meaning of the phrase supports Patent Owner’s proposal. The adjectives “solderable” and “thermal” are grammatically parallel in the phrase, and there is no apparent reason why those adjectives do not each equivalently modify the noun “contact,” such that the “contact” between the thermally conductive region and the thermally conducting base must be both “solderable” and “thermal.” See Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (Patent Owner asserting that “[t]his term plainly requires ‘solderable” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,528,421 - Nichia Corporation / Osram Opto Semiconductors, Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 15, 2020 · IPR2019-01487 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claim 7 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Andrews anticipated or rendered the claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“But this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim as we have construed it. In particular, in advancing this contention, Petitioner does not present any argument or evidence that thermal contact pad 36 of Andrews is in “solderable thermal contact” with the combination of plate 51 and insulating film 49. Rather, because we agree with Patent Owner that “‘solderable thermal contact’ requires solderability between the region and the base, not some other unclaimed structure,” we also agree with Patent Owner that “the Petition fails to show that Andrews teaches a ‘thermally conducti[ve] region’ solderable to a ‘thermally conducting base.’” Prelim. Resp. 30. In addition, Patent Owner specifically addresses the possibility that Andrews’s thermal contact pad 36 and insulating film 49 are in solderable contact, notwithstanding the omission of such an argument in the Petition. See id. at 30–31. Patent Owner observes that the bottom layer of what Petitioner identifies as the recited “thermally conducting base” is an electrically insulating film, and what Petitioner identifies as the recited “thermally conductive region” is an electrical conductor, “such as gold, silver, [or] tin.” Id. at 31 (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶ 70). Patent Owner asserts that “[i]t is not possible to solder a conductor such as gold, silver, or tin to a nonconductive insulating film.” Id. at 31. That assertion is consistent with a technical dictionary’s definition of “solderability” as “[t]hat property of a metal surface to be readily wetted by molten solder.” See Ex. 3001 (definition by The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms) (emphasis added). In light of these considerations, we conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claim 7 as anticipated by Andrews.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“F. Summary Because we conclude that the Petition does not present a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that any challenged claim is unpatentable, we also deny the Motion for Joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (permitting joinder only where a properly filed petition “warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314”). We need not reach Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See Prelim. Resp. 47–56. III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder is denied.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that the level of skill in the art is apparent from the cited art and that such a person “would have had at least a B.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field, and four years’ experience designing semiconductor—including LED—packages.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–33). Patent Owner does not dispute this articulation, which we adopt for this Decision. See Prelim. Resp. 8.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“First, we find that the plain meaning of the phrase supports Patent Owner’s proposal. The adjectives “solderable” and “thermal” are grammatically parallel in the phrase, and there is no apparent reason why those adjectives do not each equivalently modify the noun “contact,” such that the “contact” between the thermally conductive region and the thermally conducting base must be both “solderable” and “thermal.” See Prelim. Resp. 25 (Patent Owner asserting that “[t]his term plainly requires ‘solderable thermal contact between a thermally conductive region and the thermally conductive base’”). Second, we find that the prosecution history of the ’421 patent also supports Patent Owner’s proposal. Although both parties cite the same relevant aspect of that prosecution history, they interpret it differently. See Pet. 33–34; Prelim. Resp. 26–29. When the application that matured into the ’421 patent was originally filed, independent claim 1 did not include the word “solderable,” but instead recited only that a bottom surface of the LED assembly include “a thermally conductive region in thermal contact with the thermally conducting base, for spreading heat transmitted to the base from the one or more LED die.” Ex. 1002, 21. After the Applicant successfully traversed an obviousness rejection based on a combination of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,847,935 (“Thaler”) and 6,565,239 (“Rizkin”), the Examiner rejected claim 1 as anticipated by U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2003/0189830 (Ex. 1011, “Sugimoto”). Id. at 109. Sugimoto describes a light-source apparatus using an LED in which light-emission efficiency is improved to achieve greater light-output intensity, operational life, and mechanical strength. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 1, 17. In responding to the anticipation rejection during prosecution to distinguish Sugimoto, the Applicant made two amendments to independent claim 1. First, the claim was amended to add the last limitation of the issued claim (“further comprising an LED assembly mount selected from the group consisting of an electrically insulated fastener and a solderable bonding pad”). Ex. 1002, 124. Second, the claim was amended to add the word “solderable” in the limitation at issue, thereby requiring that the “thermally conductive region [be] in solderable thermal contact with the thermally conducting base” (emphasis added). Id. Both of these aspects of Applicant’s amendments were identified by the Examiner in the reasons for allowance as not disclosed by Sugimoto. Id. at 167.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,528,421 - LG Electronics, Inc. v. Broadcom CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2017-01624 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Diaz did not disclose internally reprogrammable hardware accelerators, and the other grounds did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“3. Construction of “configurable” In construing this term, we have considered the specification of the ’353 patent and its prosecution history. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxycinn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In accord with these portions of the ’844 patent specification and file history discussed supra, we conclude that a hardware accelerator is configurable only if its functionality can be internally reprogrammed. Thus, under our construction, an accelerator selected by an API or other instrumentality would not itself be “configurable.” This will be discussed further infra.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, as Patent Owner argues, Diaz ’353 does not explicitly or inherently disclose hardware accelerators that are configurable to perform decoding functions according to a plurality of decoding methods. In Diaz ’533 the overall decoder — as opposed to the constituent hardware accelerators — is configurable in that the processor controls which hardware accelerators are activated. Prelim. Resp. 2, 5–8. We see no meaningful distinction in this respect between Diaz ’353 and Sullivan ’021 which, as discussed above, discloses an API that is configurable to select various hardware accelerators, but which are not themselves configurable, to assist in the decoding process. See Prelim. Resp. 6. In sum, the functionality of the hardware accelerators of Diaz ’353 cannot be internally reprogrammed, but rather can only be bypassed or reused for various operations. Therefore, in accord with our claim construction set forth above, we determine that those hardware accelerators are not “configurable” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“C. Obviousness of Claims 8 and 14 over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, and of Claim 12 over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim As discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the issue of whether Diaz ’353 discloses the claim 1 requirement of configurable hardware accelerators. Claims 8, 12, and 14 depend from claim 1 and so also include this requirement by virtue of their dependency. Petitioner’s obviousness grounds directed to these claims is premised on Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claim 1 that Diaz ’353 discloses configurable hardware accelerators. Pet. 51–63. Petitioner does not provide argument or evidence — aside from the above-considered anticipation arguments based on Diaz ’353 alone — that the combination of Diaz ’353 with Purcell ’483, Fandrianto ’459 or Kim teaches or suggests “a hardware accelerator . . . configurable to perform the decoding function according to a plurality of decoding methods.” Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 8 and 14 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, or of claim 12 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,284,844 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 20, 2016 · IPR2015-02000 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Palo Alto Networks’ rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution for claims 1–22 because it showed no overlooked or misapprehended matter.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“least the following reasons. Under our rules a petition must set forth, for each claim challenged, “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). As we pointed out in our Decision, the Petition did not proffer a specific construction for the term “file cache.” Decision 6. Instead, Petitioner proposed the following blanket construction for all terms: “the BRI for every claim term to be its plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 12 (footnote omitted). Petitioner provided no further explanation or support for its proposal. Nor does Petitioner provide a construction for “file cache” in the rehearing request, or any explanation why the Board’s construction is incorrect. Thus, while Petitioner contends that the Patent Owner’s construction adopted by the Board is “unsupported by the ʼ731 patent claims, specification, or even any extrinsic evidence,” Petitioner provides no details as to what was allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the Board. Req. Reh’g 7. Petitioner’s argument is unavailing because it shifts the burden of advancing a claim construction from the petitioner to the Board. The AIA statute is clear that the burden lies with Petitioner to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing before an inter partes review is instituted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Consequently, our rules require the petition to set forth a claim construction. See supra. Having failed to present a specific construction for “file cache” in its Petition, or to convince the Board that the term needed no further construction, Petitioner did not discharge its burden and therefore is not in a position to complain now that the Board chose an alternative construction presented by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“This argument could not have been overlooked or misapprehended because it was not presented in the Petition. The Petition’s argument on this issue was one paragraph long and raised two points. Pet. 12. First, Petitioner asserted that neither the parent nor grandparent applications disclosed a file cache because “the word ‘cache’ does not appear in either application.” Id. The second argument was that Patent Owner “tacitly admitted during prosecution” that the challenged claims were not entitled to the earlier date. Id. Both arguments were addressed by the Board in the Decision on Institution, at pages 11–13. The rehearing request cites no discussion in the Petition of the current assertion that the known Downloadables are lists. Moreover, the evidence relied on by Patent Owner to support this argument does not contradict the Board’s finding that the ’194 patent described a file cache. Patent Owner relies on the ʼ194 patent itself, which states: “A Downloadable is an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer.” Ex. 2001, col. 1, ll. 44–47. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that a “known Downloadable” is just a list and not a file is not supported by the ʼ194 patent. A rehearing request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed. See supra. It is not an opportunity to present new arguments. Petitioner’s argument that known Downloadables are lists was not raised by in the Petition and is not proper in a rehearing request.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“because it was not presented in the Petition. The Petition’s argument on this issue was one paragraph long and raised two points. Pet. 12. First, Petitioner asserted that neither the parent nor grandparent applications disclosed a file cache because “the word ‘cache’ does not appear in either application.” Id. The second argument was that Patent Owner “tacitly admitted during prosecution” that the challenged claims were not entitled to the earlier date. Id. Both arguments were addressed by the Board in the Decision on Institution, at pages 11–13. The rehearing request cites no discussion in the Petition of the current assertion that the known Downloadables are lists. Moreover, the evidence relied on by Patent Owner to support this argument does not contradict the Board’s finding that the ’194 patent described a file cache. Patent Owner relies on the ʼ194 patent itself, which states: “A Downloadable is an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer.” Ex. 2001, col. 1, ll. 44–47. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that a “known Downloadable” is just a list and not a file is not supported by the ʼ194 patent.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,418,731
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.