• Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00252 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 8–23 obvious over any asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024); Paper 8 (referral to panel after no discretionary denial briefing under the Interim Processes memorandum). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary 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.” For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 78–82). Patent Owner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 2001 § IV.C). The differences between the parties’ definitions are minor, as recognized by Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 104), and we do not discern any meaningful differences based on the preliminary record. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’088 patent and the asserted prior art. Notwithstanding, we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “obviousness contentions based on Ellis and Spivey rely expressly on the use of a “known webserver” to perform the “transmitting first instructions” limitations excerpted above. See Pet. 28–34. Yet Petitioner does not specify how such a webserver would be integrated with the other elements from Ellis and Spivey cited by Petitioner. At best, Petitioner provides a background section on the known use of webservers (see id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 49–53, 127–134)), but this does not provide a rationale for integrating a webserver in the Ellis–Spivey combination. We also have considered Petitioner’s cited testimony from Dr. Wicker supporting this background section. The first cited portion, which is located at paragraphs 49–53 of Dr. Wicker’s declaration, supports the premises in the background section, but does not include a rationale for adding a webserver to the Ellis– Spivey combination. See Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 49–53. The second cited portion, which is located at paragraphs 127–134 of Dr. Wicker’s declaration, includes a rationale for modifying the Ellis–Spivey combination to include a webserver.3 See Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 127–134. But that rationale is completely 3 The cited rationale in Dr. Wicker’s declaration appears to be tailored to support Petitioner’s obviousness contentions in IPR2025-00251, where unaddressed in the Petition. We decline to assume that Petitioner adopts Dr. Wicker’s testimony about the rationale as its position, because that would amount to improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 35–36 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (citing Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative)) (stating that “parties that incorporate expert testimony by reference in their petitions, motions, or replies without providing explanation of such testimony risk having the testimony not considered by the Board”).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,871,088
• Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00251 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because neither asserted obviousness combination showed a reasonable likelihood of success, chiefly due to unsupported webserver teachings and motivation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “c. Analysis We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s rationale for adding a facilitator- type webserver to the Ellis–Spivey combination based on “POSA’s Knowledge.” First, Petitioner’s combination of Spivey with Ellis is already allegedly based on improving latency issues via the incorporation of Spivey’s LDSD and MQSD in Ellis’s system. See Pet. 22–24. Petitioner touts that this modification would result in reduced latency to a time period “at least two orders of magnitude shorter than conventional time periods of legacy devices.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 96). But the Petition does not establish whether this latency improvement would or could be maintained when adding a separate webserver, as it has proposed. And Dr. Rubin testifies that the inclusion of an additional webserver—an additional component—is likely to create latency insofar as it must receive, process, and/or handle data. Ex. 2001 ¶ 305. We are persuaded by Dr. Rubin’s testimony, and we find that adding a webserver to Petitioner’s existing Ellis– Spivey combination tends to undermine Petitioner’s foundational rationale for combining these references, which is the reduction of latency. See Pet. 23.” slip op. at 22

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

    “Third, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 49) that Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have added a facilitator-type webserver to the Ellis–Spivey combination when neither reference teaches or suggests a webserver for facilitating communication between a client and a socket server. Dr. Wicker’s supporting testimony stresses that “webservers were well-known components in streaming systems that were useful for facilitating communication between client devices and socket servers, and client devices and media sources.” Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 128–132. But “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner fails to provide any persuasive reason with a rational underpinning why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to add a webserver to the existing Ellis–Spivey combination.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The differences between the parties’ definitions are minor, as recognized by Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 104), and we do not discern any meaningful differences based on the preliminary record. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’088 patent and the asserted prior art. Notwithstanding, we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 8. Petitioner also argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “socket” is “a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first event information is provided to a VCD [viewer client device].” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 163). Thus, Petitioner argues that a “first event socket corresponding to the first event information” is “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to VCDs.” Id. Patent Owner states that “[e]xcept for the ‘socket’ term for which Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s construction . . . for purposes of [its] preliminary response, Patent Owner agrees that no terms require construction and construes all other terms consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,871,088
• Toyota Motor Corp. / Kia Copr. v. Emerging Automotive LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00785 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Zaid disclosed or taught the claimed vehicle-unlocking request, for claims 1–7, 10–15, and 18–20.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner reads Zaid’s reservation for a vehicle as providing “access” to said vehicle too broadly. Zaid discloses that (1) when a reservation is received, (2) vehicle access is provided, and (3) then “once vehicle access is provided, the user can send commands from the wireless communication device to a vehicle access control component coupled to the vehicle to accurate various vehicle functionalities, such as open the vehicle door, tum on the engine, and/or otherwise allow the user to use the vehicle.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 124. We understand this disclosure to mean that Zaid provides a separate command for unlocking the doors, which occurs after the vehicle is reserved. See id. Thus, we find that reservation request is different than and separate from the request for unlocking the reserved vehicle. Petitioner, however, does not identify Zaid’s command for unlocking the doors as the claimed “request” for unlocking the vehicle. See Pet. 29–31.” slip op. at 24

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner reads Zaid’s reservation for a vehicle as providing “access” to said vehicle too broadly. Zaid discloses that (1) when a reservation is received, (2) vehicle access is provided, and (3) then “once vehicle access is provided, the user can send commands from the wireless communication device to a vehicle access control component coupled to the vehicle to accurate various vehicle functionalities, such as open the vehicle door, tum on the engine, and/or otherwise allow the user to use the vehicle.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 124. We understand this disclosure to mean that Zaid provides a separate command for unlocking the doors, which occurs after the vehicle is reserved. See id. Thus, we find that reservation request is different than and separate from the request for unlocking the reserved vehicle. Petitioner, however, does not identify Zaid’s command for unlocking the doors as the claimed “request” for unlocking the vehicle. See Pet. 29–31.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Additionally, Petitioner specifically argues that Zaid discloses this limitation. Pet. 28. Petitioner does not argue that this limitation is rendered obvious by Zaid. Id. Yet, even if Petitioner were to argue that this limitation would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan in view of Zaid, we would disagree because Petitioner has failed to show how the unlocking step would have been obvious in view of a reservation. This is especially true given that Zaid identifies these as two different steps in its process. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 124. We specifically credit the testimony of Dr. Malek that a “POSITA would understand from Zaid that any request for unlocking of a vehicle would be separate from and only occur after the vehicle is reserved” and that “Zaid further discloses that instructions for the car function, such as unlocking doors, is received through direct commands—not the separate request for reservation.” See Ex. 2001 ¶ 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 100, 124). Thus, after review of the arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation and supporting evidence that Zaid discloses or teaches “a request from the mobile device for unlocking of the vehicle” as required by limitation [1e]. Accordingly, based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that independent claim 1 is anticipated by or rendered obvious in view of Zaid.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “limitation. Pet. 28. Petitioner does not argue that this limitation is rendered obvious by Zaid. Id. Yet, even if Petitioner were to argue that this limitation would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan in view of Zaid, we would disagree because Petitioner has failed to show how the unlocking step would have been obvious in view of a reservation. This is especially true given that Zaid identifies these as two different steps in its process. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 124. We specifically credit the testimony of Dr. Malek that a “POSITA would understand from Zaid that any request for unlocking of a vehicle would be separate from and only occur after the vehicle is reserved” and that “Zaid further discloses that instructions for the car function, such as unlocking doors, is received through direct commands—not the separate request for reservation.” See Ex. 2001 ¶ 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 100, 124).” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,407,026
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00922 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were obvious over Larson and Cai.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the reasons given, we determine Petitioner has not has not shown that the asserted prior art teaches or suggests limitation [1.7]. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Larson and Cai. a) Conclusion—Claim 1 For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.” slip op. at 20

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

    “comprise the background knowledge art, with very little substantive explanation. In our view, this string-citation, without more substantive explanation, does not satisfy Petitioner’s obligation to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Larson based on the background knowledge in the art to account for limitation 1.7.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner “agrees to use Petitioner’s definition” for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’823 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner states “each claim term in the Challenged Claims” should “be given its plain and ordinary meaning,” and “that no specific construction of any claim term is required.” Pet. 17–18. Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that, for this proceeding and the grounds presented by Petitioner, no claim term requires construction.” Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this Decision, no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,446,823
• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00445 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–18 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown with sufficient particularity why either Saey, Gross, or Cioffi disclose or suggest “generating, by said CMTS for each one of said plurality of service groups, a composite SNR-related metric based at least in part on a worst- case SNR profile of said SNR related metrics corresponding to said one of said plurality of service groups.” This failing undermines Petitioner’s obviousness contentions for both challenged independent claims under all of the alleged grounds. The same deficiency extends through to all of the grounds challenging the patentability of the dependent claims. And as a result, based on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’682 patent challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 24

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “testimony of declarant Dr. Kiaei, we find Patent Owner’s criticism to have merit. The evidence from Cioffi, which Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei reference, neither discloses or suggests creating “a composite SNR-related metric” for a group of cable modems or channels. Moreover, Petitioner has failed to carry its burden of showing with particularity why a skilled artisan view Cioffi as disclosing or suggest generating a composite SNR-related metric based at least in part on a worst-case SNR profile of the SNR related metrics. More specifically, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s analysis appears to gloss over the details of Cioffi and fails to clearly articulate what of Cioffi allegedly meets the requirements of Limitations [1D] and [10D], which ultimately diminishes the persuasiveness Petitioner’s contention. Therefore, we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that Cioffi fills the gap in Thibeault and discloses or suggests Limitations [1D] and [10D] of the challenged independent claims. IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown with sufficient particularity why either Saey, Gross, or Cioffi disclose or suggest “generating, by said CMTS for each one of said plurality of service groups, a composite SNR-related metric based at least in part on a worst- case SNR profile of said SNR related metrics corresponding to said one of said plurality of service groups.” This failing undermines Petitioner’s obviousness contentions for both challenged independent claims under all of the alleged grounds. The same deficiency extends through to all of the grounds challenging the patentability of the dependent claims.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “After studying Cioffi, in view of Petitioner’s contentions and the testimony of declarant Dr. Kiaei, we find Patent Owner’s criticism to have merit. The evidence from Cioffi, which Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei reference, neither discloses or suggests creating “a composite SNR-related metric” for a group of cable modems or channels. Moreover, Petitioner has failed to carry its burden of showing with particularity why a skilled artisan view Cioffi as disclosing or suggest generating a composite SNR-related metric based at least in part on a worst-case SNR profile of the SNR related metrics. More specifically, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s analysis appears to gloss over the details of Cioffi and fails to clearly articulate what of Cioffi allegedly meets the requirements of Limitations [1D] and [10D], which ultimately diminishes the persuasiveness Petitioner’s contention. Therefore, we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that Cioffi fills the gap in Thibeault and discloses or suggests Limitations [1D] and [10D] of the challenged independent claims. IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown with sufficient particularity why either Saey, Gross, or Cioffi disclose or suggest “generating, by said CMTS for each one of said plurality of service groups, a composite SNR-related metric based at least in part on a worst- case SNR profile of said SNR related metrics corresponding to said one of said plurality of service groups.” This failing undermines Petitioner’s obviousness contentions for both challenged independent claims under all of the alleged grounds. The same deficiency extends through to all of the grounds challenging the patentability of the dependent claims.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 38–43). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’682 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,135,682
• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00444 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Saey or Gross taught the claimed composite SNR metric for a service group of cable modems.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “A. Legal Standard Petitioner has the burden of proof. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (a skilled artisan) would have had a degree in computer or electrical engineering, computer science, information systems, or a similar discipline, along with at least three-to-four years of experience with the design and/or implementation of network-based content delivery systems, such as video-on-demand cable systems and Internet video streaming. Additional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–43). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’682 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “C. Claim Construction We interpret the challenged claims using the same 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. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner states that “[a]ll claim terms herein should be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not suggest otherwise. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term requires express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “D. Petitioner Has Not Established Sufficiently That the Prior Art Discloses or Suggests Each and Every Limitation Recited by Independent Claims 1 and 10 Limitations [1D] and [10D] of challenged independent claims 1 and 10 recite “generating, by said CMTS for each one of said plurality of service groups, a composite SNR-related metric based at least in part on a worst-case SNR profile of said SNR related metrics corresponding to said one of said plurality of service groups.” Ex. 1001, 8:10–15 (Limitation [1D]), 9:22–26 (Limitation [10D]). And each ground in this Petition, directly or indirectly, depends on the sufficiency of Petitioner’s contention that either Saey or Gross disclose or suggest that limitation. See Pet. 19–23, 28–31, 52–54, 57–59, 75. After studying the submissions of both parties and the evidence of record, however, we determine there is insufficient support for that contention to satisfy Petitioner’s burden for instituting inter partes review. And because this deficiency is dispositive of the Petition, we focus our discussion below accordingly, after we first provide an overview of Saey and Gross.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,135,682
• DISH Network LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00462 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–3, failing to support a motivation to combine Carhart and Grube.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “A. Legal Standard Petitioner has the burden of proof. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “bandwidth, we agree with Patent Owner that this contention is unsubstantiated. Although there is sufficient evidence that Grube’s common bit-loading scheme improves upon and benefits infrastructures utilizing telephone lines, Petitioner provides no basis, or minimal at best, to bridge those advantages obtained in the context of Grube’s system to Carhart’s BCN. The evidence Petitioner cites from Grube and Dr. Williams (Ex. 1010, 2:48–3:17, 3:34–42, 4:18–26, 6:54–67, 7:13–8:14, 14:33–46, 34:45– 52, 57:29–38, Fig. 8; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 92–111) either describes how Grube’s bitloading scheme works in an infrastructure utilizing telephone lines or it represents that the bit-loading scheme is able to satisfy the need for a one-tomany and/or many-to-one communication system within an infrastructure that utilizes existing telephone wires. Dr. Williams’s testimony provides little, if any, persuasive information to bridge the gap between how Grube’s bit-loading scheme’s usefulness within a telephone line infrastructure translates to a skilled artisan into adding similar value within a BCN infrastructure; instead, Dr. Williams largely mirrors the naked assertions Petitioner makes and cites to the same evidence without further substantive reasoning. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Likewise, no underlying support or reasoning from either Petitioner or Dr. Williams is provided to substantiate the claim that “Grube represents a suitable, known technique for orchestrating digital communication between a central unit and multiple remote units in networks like Carhart’s” (Pet. 16). Grube suggest that its technique eliminates high data rate transmission path requirements to expand the usefulness and areas in which communications systems may be established. Ex. 1010, 57:29–38. Petitioner offers no basis for us to determine Grube’s technique for eliminating high data rate transmission path requirements would have been a known technique by skilled artisans for orchestrating digital communication between nodes within a network like Carhart’s that necessarily depend on the high data rate transmission paths that a BCN provides. Left unfulfilled is any clear explanation for why or how Grube’s bit- loading scheme would have actually improved or benefited Carhart’s system, which Petitioner admits already teaches a network with a centralized computer that uses existing coaxial cables to communicate with remote stations (Pet. 10). For example, Petitioner does not identify a single known shortcoming with Carhart’s one-to-many and/or many-to-one communication system infrastructure that a skilled artisan would recognize may be overcome with Grube’s bit-loading scheme. To the contrary, as Patent Owner notes, rather than needing a technique Grube teaches to address the lack of “adequate bandwidth” provided by telephone wires (Ex. 1010, 2:1–3), Carhart teaches that its BCN provides excess unused bandwidth (Ex. 1009, 8:36–38). Nor does Petitioner explain why or how a skilled artisan would have viewed Grube’s bit-loading scheme to be superior to the schemes Carhart utilizes to form a multi-casting infrastructure. Moreover, Petitioner’s admission Carhart teaches that teaches a BCN with a centralized computer that communicates with remote stations, further weakens Petitioner’s position because it shows Carhart’s infrastructure already accomplishes the same goal that Petition proposes a skilled artisan would have sought to achieve through the proposed modification. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that the Board’s” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner

    “The last point we make about Petitioner’s reasoning is that it lacks any substantive support for why a skilled artisan would have chosen to configure Carhart’s node to have the functionality Grube describes for its primary site. Here again, Petitioner simply concludes that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have Carhart’s nodes act as Grube’s primary site without any evidence that such a correlation was known by skilled artisans or any analysis regarding the roles Carhart’s nodes and Grube’s primary site play within their respective infrastructures that would have led to that choice. Pet. 20–21. We are mindful that “[c]are must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.’” Grain Processing Corp. v. American–Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed.Cir.1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Petitioner’s failure to provide any clear explanation backed by supporting evidence for why a skilled artisan would have selected Carhart’s nodes to modify and perform as the primary site when implementing Grube’s bit-loading scheme suggests Petitioner improperly relied on hindsight reasoning to piece together elements to arrive at the claimed invention. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown with sufficient particularity why it would have been obvious to modify a node in Carhart, in view of Grube, to transmit a probe signal to the other respective nodes and determine a common bit-loading modulation scheme from the various bit-loading modulation schemes determined and provided by each of the other respective nodes that received a probe signal. And as a result, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Carhart and Grube as proposed. This failing undermines Petitioner’s showing as to independent claims 1–3 for all grounds.” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (a skilled artisan) would have had a degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks, e.g., a bachelor’s and three or more years of experience; a master’s and at least one year of experience; or a doctorate and some work experience. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’759 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,889,759
• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00578 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 6, 8, and 9 were obvious.

  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 a petition and the preliminary 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, and accompanying exhibits and evidence, we determine Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim in the inter partes review. Therefore, we deny institution of an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’826 patent on all challenges in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends as follows: The ’826 Patent describes and claims aspects and functionality of cable and satellite television signal processing and communication systems. As of the alleged September 8, 2011 priority date, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ’826 Patent would have had at least: i) a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering or an equivalent subject and three or more years of experience working in the field of cable and/or satellite signal processing and communication systems; ii) a Master’s in electrical engineering or an equivalent subject and one or more years of experience working in the field of cable and/or satellite television signal processing and communication systems; or iii) a Ph.D. in electrical engineering or an equivalent subject and at least some experience working in the field of cable and/or satellite television signal processing and/or communication systems. Additional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30–31) (internal citation omitted). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we agree with and will use Petitioner’s proposed level for this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “The parties indicate that the district court in the Charter case (2:22-cv-00125) construed “network management messages” in the claims of the ’826 patent to mean “messages which report on the network based on the measured characteristics.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1009, 29); Prelim. Resp. 10. Petitioner contends this construction is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language. Pet. 25. Patent Owner asserts that, in the Cox case (2:23-cv-01049), the parties agreed that “network management messages” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001, 2). Patent Owner asserts that its arguments “do not turn on the construction of ‘network management messages’ so there is no need to construe that, or any other, term of the ’826 Patent claims at this stage of the proceeding.” Id. As there is no controversy between the parties regarding any claim language that we would need to resolve in order to render our decision in this case, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms without specific construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “While Petitioner mentions portions of Renken that it considers relevant to limitation 1h, Petitioner does not explain how it reads each aspect of limitation 1h on Renken. For example, Petitioner does not identify what in Renken corresponds to the “network management messages,” what corresponds to the “measured characteristic of the received signal” that “is different than said network management messages,” and what discloses that the “measured characteristic” is the basis for “controlling transmission of the network management messages” from the “receiver” “back to the headend.” b) Conclusion for Claim 1 Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood to prevail in demonstrating that Renken in view of the general knowledge of a POSITA discloses limitations 1a and 1h of claim 1.7 Thus, we do not reach the parties’ contentions concerning other claim limitations or Renken’s priority date.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,825,826
• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2024-00452 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving the challenged claims obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “A. Legal Standard Petitioner has the burden of proof. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “have viewed Grube’s common bit-loading scheme as providing improvements over and benefits to the Gurantz system’s ability to multi-cast information, we agree with Patent Owner that this contention is unsubstantiated. Although there is sufficient evidence that Grube’s common bit-loading scheme improves upon and benefits infrastructures utilizing telephone lines, Petitioner provides no basis, or minimal at best, to bridge those advantages obtained in the context of Grube’s system to Gurantz’s BCN. The evidence Petitioner cites from Grube and Mr. Bertonis (Ex. 1009, 4:43–51, 17:20–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–136) either describes how Grube’s bitloading scheme works in an infrastructure utilizing telephone lines or it represents that the bit-loading scheme is able to satisfy the need for a one-tomany and/or many-to-one communication system within an infrastructure that utilizes existing telephone wires. Moreover, Mr. Bertonis’s testimony provides little, if any, persuasive information to bridge the gap between how Grube’s bit-loading scheme’s usefulness within a telephone line infrastructure translates to a skilled artisan into adding similar value within a BCN infrastructure; instead, Mr. Bertonis largely mirrors the naked assertions Petitioner makes and cites to the same evidence without further substantive reasoning. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that modulation scheme from a plurality received response signals that each include a respective bit-loading modulation scheme determined by a separate node. To be clear, “we accept” these contentions about what Grube discloses without making a determination about whether the evidence of record supports such a finding in order to focus our analysis on the dispositive issue, which is whether, in view of Grube, Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently a rationale with a rational underpinning for modifying the nodes in Gurantz’s BCN system in the manner claimed.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and three to four years of experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks. Additional education may substitute for experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 84). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’759 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,889,759
• Panasonic Automotive Systems Co., Ltd. v. Unm Rainforest InnovationsInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00364 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 8 or substitute claims 44–47, 49, and 50 unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons provided below, after considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine, based on the record before us, there is not a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “in the field of the ’096 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and around two years of experience in the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 57). In turn, Patent Owner submits a slightly different description: that a person of ordinary skill in the art “in the technical field of the ’096 patent would have had at least a master’s degree in computer engineering or electrical engineering, or equivalent work experience, along with at least 1 year of experience related specifically to wireless communications, including knowledge of MIMO [(Multiple-Input Multiple-Output)] and OFDM.” Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 18). For the purpose of determining whether to institute trial, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’096 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art but our conclusions would be the same under Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Of note, the numerous claim terms construed in the Apple Litigation and referenced by the parties include the terms “data” and “non-data.” See Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005); Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 1005). Both parties agree that “data” and “non-data” are to be given their plain and ordinary meanings. See Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005); Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 1005). As demonstrated in the analysis below, for the purpose of determining whether to institute review, we need not construe any claim terms and phrases to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Joint Proposal’s legacy signal field (L-SIG) does not disclose data as recited in limitation 8[a]. Both parties agree that the term “data” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 16–18; Prelim. Resp. 22–23. The ’096 Patent utilizes the term “data” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. See Ex. 1001 generally. We find that the Joint Proposal likewise utilizes the term “data” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, to describe data fields that include the PHY sub-layer Service Data Unit, and shown in each of the legacy PLCP packet format, Mixed Mode PLCP packet format, and Green Field PLCP packet format that include the PHY sub-layer Service Data Unit. See Ex. 1008, 11:11–13, Fig. 1. Indeed, in addressing limitation 8[b], Petitioner identifies the Joint Proposal’s data field in the Mixed Mode PLCP format as disclosing “data configured in a second format compatible with a second communication system,” as recited in limitation 8[b]. See Pet. 26–27. Petitioner, however, does not direct us to where the Joint Proposal discloses or describes the legacy signal field (L- SIG) as “data” according to its plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 25–26. Petitioner’s citations to the Joint Proposal fail to provide sufficient support for Petitioner’s position that L-SIG discloses “data” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. See Ex. 1008, 11:4–6, 11:18–23. Petitioner further does not provide sufficient explanation why the Joint Proposal’s L- SIG otherwise constitutes “data,” according to the plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 25–26. The testimony of Dr. Hansen, cited by Petitioner to support its arguments, is no more illuminating. Compare Pet. 25–26, with Ex. 1002 ¶ 177.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,265,096

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.