- Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00653 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’504 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 72); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1002 ¶ 47. As reflected above, Dr. Wooley’s testimony as to element [1.2] does not even assert that Cardamone discloses a tank, let alone one or more sensors disposed at a tank as recited in element [1.2]. Thus, Dr. Wooley’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s argument on this issue.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,726,504 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00652 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’403 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 73); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses element [1.2] because the evidence cited does not disclose a “first computer system being configured to provide remote control of the first pump or first valve” (i.e., a fluid-handling device). Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but Petitioner has not identified any disclosure of the capability to remotely control fluid-handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, Kahn’s disclosures that Petitioner relies on for allegedly teaching remote control are deficient. We discuss each. First, Petitioner points to the following, “[f]or instance, as illustrated in FIG. 1C, a fluid control device such as a valve 15A is located on the input side of a sen[s]or unit 110.” Ex. 1005, 8:19–21, cited in Pet. 13. This portion of Kahn, however, does not disclose remote control. Second, Petitioner cites to the following: Finally, or in addition to, the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:62–67). We agree with Patent Owner that this portion of Kahn teaches on-site alerts and local control of the fluid-handling device. See Prelim. Resp. 7. This portion of Kahn does not disclose remote control.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,294,403 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00651 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9–20 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“target value” is part of a command that is sent from a computing device to a server and then to a controller. The controller then receives a measurement of the fluid by a sensor and determines whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” If the measurement does not satisfy the “target value,” further operations are undertaken. The recited operation sequence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” is not as Dr. Wooley opines because the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time is represented by the measurement taken by the sensor, 11 Some claim language less relevant to construing “target value” was omitted for ease of reference. which the controller then uses to determine whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” Additionally, claim 1 recites that the “target value” is sent as part of a command to the controller. The “target value” is not sent to the controller from the sensor, as might be expected if the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” were as Dr. Wooley opines. Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s construction would also result in “target value” meaning effectively the same thing as the measurement of the fluid by the sensor, a concept that is separately recited in claim 1 and to which the “target value” is compared. The Specification of the ’680 patent does not support Petitioner’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value.” Although the Specification does not recite “target value,” it recites “target state,” and describes “target state” sufficiently to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “target” as used in “target value” and “target state.” In particular, the ’680 patent explains that “[i]n some embodiments, the process 104 includes receiving, via a network interface, from a remote user device, (e.g., via a command-center server) a command to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state.” Ex. 1001, 11:48–51. This portion reflects that the command is seeking to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state. In other words, the “target value” or “target state” is not generally “the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time”; rather, it is a value or state that the fluid-handling device is desired to be in, as Patent Owner and Dr. Durham explain. Additionally, just as claim 1 recites a directional component for the “target value” to be sent to the controller in a command, so too does the Specification describe a “target state” as being sent in a command from a remote user device. Thus, the Specification clearly supports the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Patent Owner and Dr. Durham and not the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Wooley. slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“time-stamped process data, report exception therein to the remote host, and extract and transmit time-stamped process data to the remote host.” Ex. 1005, Abst. (emphases added). Almadi explains that its remote field systems must include a plurality of controller units “to issue commands to, and gather and process data from a plurality of field devices, including remote systems and instruments, . . . [and] a database server for the storage of process data retrieved from the remote subsystems and instruments.” Id. at 2:22–30 (emphases added). Based on these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established that Almadi discloses element [1.4]. Specifically, the teachings from Almadi identified by Petitioner refer to process data, which is data retrieved from the remote subsystems/field devices. Thus, we understand that Almadi’s teaching—of using an Ethernet switch to transmit “process data”—describes transmitting data from the remote subsystems/field devices. See Ex. 1005, 3:13–17, cited in Pet. 15. But claim 1 and particularly element [1.4], recites “sending, with the server, the target value to the network address [which identifies a controller of the fluid-handling device13] via the network,” which is different than sending process data from the field devices to the remote host or database server for storage.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,175,680 - Tanklogix, LLC v. SiteproInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00650 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–32 and 34 were unpatentable over Kahn or Kahn and Gutierrez.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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) (2024). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’871 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 18–32 and 34 of the ’871 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The respective proposed levels of qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art are similar, with Patent Owner proposing two years of experience compared to Petitioner proposing significant experience with remotely controlling fluid-handling devices, like SCADA systems. Patent Owner also proposes more extensive experience in lieu of educational experience. While we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications to be acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’871 patent and the asserted prior art. Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the qualifications adopted.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“actuators and the remote control of fluid handling devices, including the receipt with the user-interface module of “a user command to actuate an actuator via a presented control interface” (limitation [18.7]) and “account authorized to send commands to remotely control fluid handling devices” (limitation [18.11]). We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses or teaches these limitations because the evidence does not provide support that there is remote control of fluid handling devices or the use of a user command on a control interface to send a command to a fluid handling device, for instance. Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but we do not discern that it teaches or discloses the capability to remotely control fluid handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, the Kahn disclosures that Petitioner repeatedly relies upon for allegedly teaching this control are deficient. See Ex. 1005, 10:62–67, 14:35– 15:2, 15:62–16:32; see also Pet. 12–14, 16–18. Kahn discloses that “the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance.” Ex. 1005, 10:62–67. Communication unit 112B is part of the local “sensor unit,” wherein the detection conditions determined by the sensor are communicated to remote devices by communication unit 112B. See id. at 3:31–33, 5:62–6:2, 6:27–35, 7:33–37, 13:7–12, Figs. 1A–1C. Kahn discloses that the sensor units, which include communication units 112B, can be located near shut-off valves and can communicate with distant locations. See id. at 11:1–13. There are no disclosures, however, in the above passages that there is remote control of fluid handling devices, that there is a user command on a control interface that actuates an actuator, or that there is a command sent to the facility actuators via a network connection, as required in limitations [18.5]–[18.7] and [18.9]–[18.12], respectively. Rather, the disclosure indicates that the communication unit 112B includes on-site alerts and that the local (non-remote) communication unit 112B can be interfaced with the control valve.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,488,871 - Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 31, 2025 · IPR2024-01434 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the single claimed design was obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“shown that Chen686, alone or in combination with the various secondary references, teaches or suggests a camera having the same overall visual appearance of the claimed design. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging the patentability of the ’435 patent’s claim over Chen686 and the asserted secondary references.” slip op. at 30
- Other 314aNot reached
“These deficiencies in analysis raise the question of whether the Petition adequately identifies the number of actual challenges, and evidence supporting each, with the degree of particularity required of petitions in our forum. The Petition does not explain why so many grounds are necessary under the circumstances or why the Board should impose on Patent Owner the burden of defending against so many challenges. See generally Pet. An inter partes review based on 24 distinct grounds raised against a single claim, supported by analysis lacking in particularity, potentially burdens Patent Owner unduly and makes inefficient use of the Board’s resources. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019),22 56 (“The AIA was ‘designed to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.’” (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 40 (2011), 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 69 (Post grant reviews were meant to be “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation”)). Because we understand enough of the Petition’s analysis to address each group of asserted grounds on the merits, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based solely on this issue.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner submits that a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in industrial design or an equivalent field, or two years of experience designing cameras or camera housings.” Pet. 11 (citing Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 22–24). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposal regarding a designer of ordinary skill in the art. See Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 22–24.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In its claim construction section, Petitioner states that the ’435 patent “encompasses a rectangular body with flat faces, a rectangular lens cover extending outward from the front of the body, rectangular buttons/access elements, and rectangles for displays” and “[a]s a whole . . . gives an ordinary designer an overall visual impression of a rectangular design for a camera/camera housing.” Pet. 12 (citing Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 25–26). These descriptions are incredibly general and do not provide an adequate understanding of the overall visual appearance of the claimed design. Moreover, we do not find them helpful in our analysis and, therefore, do not adopt them as a claim construction. Patent Owner does not explicitly address claim construction. See” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00635 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, principally because Rothkopf did not disclose an electrode positioned on the carrier member.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (to anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a single prior art reference must expressly or inherently disclose each claim limitation”). Moreover, “[b]ecause the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Whether a reference anticipates is assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.” (second and third alterations in original) (quoting In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991))). slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“member.” On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Independent claim 1 recites “a carrier member formed from a transparent material.” Ex. 1001, 56:13. Independent claim 9 recites “a carrier member having a circular carrier profile and positioned over the circular rear opening.” Id. at 57:20–21. Independent claim 15 recites “a carrier member protruding outward from an external surface of the housing member.” Id. at 58:10–11. None of these phrases is written in the form of a “means for” performing a function, the Petition does not identify a recited function,5 and Petitioner does not address the issue of whether the overall limitation recites adequate structure for performing any such function. See 5 On the conference call, Petitioner represented that “the Petition identifies carrying or supporting electrodes to be the function of the carrier member.” Ex. 1051, 49:3–10 (citing Pet. 10–12). The cited section of the Petition quotes the Specification, not the claim. Pet. 10. However, the focus of a means-plus-function analysis is the function recited in the claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). And, the Petition associates the function of supporting the electrodes with “carrier assembly” not “carrier member.” See Pet. 10–11 (“Petitioner interprets the claim term ‘carrier assembly’ according[ly] to mean any appropriate structure that supports the electrodes and, optionally, optical components.”). Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The first step is to determine whether a claim limitation is drafted in means-plusfunction format, which requires us to construe the limitation to determine whether it connotes sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art.”). Additionally, regardless as to whether “Courts have construed ‘member’ style claim terms as nonstructural” under the particular facts before those courts, it was incumbent upon Petitioner—particularly in light of the “carrier” modifier—to demonstrate that “carrier member” is a nonce term under the facts of the case before us, i.e. whether the term is a generic placeholder that a person of ordinary skill in the art of wearable electronic devices/watches would not recognize as a name for sufficiently definite structure. Pet. 11; Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348 (“In making the assessment of whether the limitation in question is a means-plus-function term subject to the strictures of § 112, para. 6, our cases have emphasized that the essential inquiry is . . . whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”); see id. at 1350 (explaining that a nonce word is a generic term “that reflect[s] nothing more than verbal constructs [that] may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’ because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.”); see also Kyocera, 22 F.4th 1380 (the court, in Petitioner’s cited case, determining, as part of its analysis, that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the claimed ‘lifter member’ to have ‘a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure.’”). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that “carrier member” is a means-plus-function term.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“We find to be persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that “the Petition fails to cite anything in Rothkopf that describes electrodes attached to the ‘rear cover 608.’” Prelim. Resp. 23. Rothkopf discloses several embodiments of varying configurations. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–27. Petitioner, in the block quoted contention above, stitches together several statements from various points in the Specification that individually are correct descriptions of an aspect of a particular embodiment or example but, together, fail to constitute a disclosure of an embodiment having electrodes positioned on the rear cover. For example, Rothkopf, in the paragraph 148 cited by Petitioner, states that “[i]n some embodiments, the biosensor module 710 includes the rear cover 608” and, “[a]s described in more detail . . . with respect to FIG. 16, the biosensor module 710 may include one or more light sources, one or more photodetectors, and one or more electrodes or conductive elements.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 148 (emphasis added). Thus, the biosensor module (mapped to the carrier assembly, not the carrier member) might include a rear cover and might include an electrode. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the electrode, when present, is positioned on the cover (mapped to the carrier member). Petitioner points to Rothkopf’s paragraph 201 as support for the proposition that “Rothkopf describes an embodiment where the electrodes are positioned on the cover 608.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 201). That paragraph provides that, “[a]s described above with respect to FIG. 6, in some embodiments, the biosensors are disposed relative to or attached to a rear cover 608 that is formed from an optically transparent material and is configured to be positioned with the opening of the housing 601.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 201. The paragraph does not describe an electrode as an exemplary biosensor in such embodiments. Rather, the paragraph goes on to describe the rear cover’s use with light sources 1611–1613 and detector 1614, i.e. optical sensor components. See id. (“The convex curved area of the rear cover 608 may include one or more windows or apertures that provide operational access to one or more internal components located within the housing. For example, the rear cover 608 may include an array of windows, each window including an aperture or opening for a respective light source 1611–1613 and/or the detector 1614.”). This description is consistent with Figure 16, which is relied on by Petitioner, where those optical sensor components are positioned on or under rear cover 608 (shaded orange in Petitioner’s annotated figure above) while electrodes 1601 and 1602 are positioned on the rear face of the housing (shaded in red) and thereby contact the user’s skin. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 190, 196 (“In this example [of Figure 16], a first electrode 1601 and second electrode 1602 are disposed on the rear face of the device 100. The first 1601 and second 1602 electrodes may be configured to make contact with the skin of the user’s wrist when the device is being worn.”). We determine that Petitioner has not shown adequately that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Rothkopf to disclose an electrode positioned on the carrier member, as recited in independent claims 9 and 15 and, by extension, claims 13 and 14, which depend from independent claim 9. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its anticipation challenge (Ground 1).” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,987,054 - DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 22, 2023 · IPR2023-00265 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that DeWaal, alone or with Schugar, renders claims 1, 4–15, 17–19, or 32 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“recited wager. Pet. 35. However, Petitioner does not explain adequately how this wager “coincides with each of the defined number of legs” of DeWaal’s bonus game (which Petitioner maps to the recited multi-outcome wagering event (id. at 23)) as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner refers to the player’s input for each round of bonus game. Id. at 35. As explained above, DeWaal discloses that a player’s selection of a winning outcome for each round of the bonus game is independent of the wager made by the player in the base game. As acknowledged by Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Crevelt, DeWaal’s wager allows “a player [to] qualify for the bonus game,” but “players of the bonus event must also ‘make an input in association with the plurality of outcomes in each round as indicated by block 108’ in FIG. 3.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 141 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 129). Nor has Petitioner explained adequately how DeWaal identifies “players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs” of the bonus game “based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner again refers to the player’s input for each round of the bonus game. Pet. 40. The wager in DeWaal is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Ex. 1004 ¶ 83. That wager does not, however, serve to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 119, 127. That is, it is those choices, not the wager, that determines whether the player advances at each leg. As such, we are not persuaded DeWaal describes “identifying one or more players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As noted above, Petitioner maps DeWaal’s base game wager to the recited wager. Pet. 35. However, Petitioner does not explain adequately how this wager “coincides with each of the defined number of legs” of DeWaal’s bonus game (which Petitioner maps to the recited multi-outcome wagering event (id. at 23)) as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner refers to the player’s input for each round of bonus game. Id. at 35. As explained above, DeWaal discloses that a player’s selection of a winning outcome for each round of the bonus game is independent of the wager made by the player in the base game. As acknowledged by Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Crevelt, DeWaal’s wager allows “a player [to] qualify for the bonus game,” but “players of the bonus event must also ‘make an input in association with the plurality of outcomes in each round as indicated by block 108’ in FIG. 3.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 141 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 129). Nor has Petitioner explained adequately how DeWaal identifies “players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs” of the bonus game “based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner again refers to the player’s input for each round of the bonus game. Pet. 40. The wager in DeWaal is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Ex. 1004 ¶ 83. That wager does not, however, serve to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 119, 127. That is, it is those choices, not the wager, that determines whether the player advances at each leg. As such, we are not persuaded DeWaal describes “identifying one or more players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that DeWaal discloses or teaches a wager as recited in independent claims 1 and 32. Petitioner’s reliance on Schugar to teach a partial buy-out offer does not correct this deficiency. See Pet. 55–58.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Independent claims 1 and 32 include several limitations involving “the wager.” First, the wager is received “in response to input from a player desiring to participate in the multi-outcome wagering event” (“receiving recitation”). Ex. 1001, 33:25–30, 40:7–11. The claims here further recite that the wager must “coincide[] with each of the defined number of legs.” Id. Second, the claims then identify “one or more players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs based on the wager.” Id. at 33:39–42, 40:20–23. Accordingly, we construe claims 1 and 32 to set out a method where the wager (1) enters the player into the event (and, thus, is set before the event) and (2) is of a nature such that it serves as the metric by which the player is evaluated at each leg to determine whether the player remains eligible to win the event.2 Neither party offers a claim construction of this term.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,704,338 - DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00264 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
Institution denied on the merits: Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 24, 28-30, 54-64, and 83 were unpatentable over DeWaal or DeWaal and Schugar.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 24, 28– 30, 54–64, and 83 of the ’716 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field; and at least two years of experience in the wager based gaming industry.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). Petitioner also states that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard” and that the “description is approximate, and a higher level of education or skill may make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art and does not propose its own level of skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We understand that these independent claims are written in a way that reads on some embodiments (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 14:61–15:19, describing an embodiment where the wager involves guessing the outcomes of 6 games and the “legs” are the outcomes of each of the underlying 6 games) but not all embodiments (see, e.g., id. at 23:9–34, describing an embodiment where the “legs” are the outcomes of each reel in a slot machine, and thus there is no evaluation of an initial wager to determine whether the player won at each leg—the wager is akin to an entry fee to play). Accordingly, we construe independent claims 1 and 83 to set out a method where the wager (1) enters the player into the event (and thus, is set before the event) and (2) is of a nature such that it serves as the metric by which the player is evaluated at each leg to determine whether they remain eligible to win the event. We similarly construe independent claim 54 to require a system wherein the controller receives a wager “in response to input from a player desiring to participate in . . . wagering events” (and thus, before the event) and (2) the wager is of a nature such that it serves as the metric by which the player is evaluated at each leg to determine whether they remain eligible to win the event.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s anticipation challenge does not adequately address the “wager” recited in the receiving and identifying limitations. In particular, the wager in DeWaal relied upon by Petitioner is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Pet. § IX.A.1.d; Ex. 1004 ¶ 57. Alternatively, DeWaal discloses that it could require a separate fee to enter the bonus game. Id. ¶ 83. In either case, the putative wager in DeWaal serves to allow entry into the event. Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how either wager serves to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. See Pet. § IX.A.1.f.; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 114–119. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 119, 128; see also Ex. 1007 ¶ 118 (“DeWaal’s identification of players that are eligible to win each round of the bonus event is ‘based on the wager,’ and more specifically based on the player’s input selection of one of the wagered upon potential outcome in each round.”) (emphasis added). That is, the player’s choice, not the relied-upon wager, determines whether the player advances at each leg. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 119 (“If at least one of the players picks (or makes an input associated with) the designated outcome in a first round, that player advances to a second round.”). As such, Petitioner does not sufficiently show that DeWaal describes “identifying one or more winners . . . based on the wager.” Similarly, even if we were to consider the player’s choice in DeWaal’s bonus event, such as whether to risk further play or take the buyout (e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 146), to be a form of wager, that wager would be different from the one required in claim 1. In particular, claim 1 requires the wager to be “in response to the . . . players desiring to participate in the . . . event” as well as to “coincide[] with each of the defined number of legs.” Ex. 1001, 32:27–30. Thus, by the time the player in DeWaal is making choices during the event, they have already expressed a desire to participate in the event, and any such “wager” to continue the event is tied only to that leg, not to “each of the defined number of legs.” In other words, claims 1 and 83 require the wager to be something that is set ahead of time, and to contain information that is used, at each leg, to evaluate whether that player remains eligible. Accordingly, for the reasons above, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently addressed each limitation of claims 1 and 83 and does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge that DeWaal anticipates claims 1 and 83.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,424,716 - DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00261 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–30 were unpatentable over DeWaal alone or with Schugar and Scott.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). 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 provided below, we determine Petitioner has not satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’439 patent is unpatentable, we do not institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“wager.” First, the wager is received “in response to the . . . players desiring to participate in the multi-outcome wagering event” (“receiving” limitation). The claim here further specifies that the wager must “coincide[] with each of the number of legs.”1 Second, the claim then identifies one or more winners “based on the wager” (“identifying” limitation). The claim here also” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“adequately address the specific “wager” recited in the receiving and identifying limitations. In particular, the wager in DeWaal is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Ex. 1004 ¶ 83. Alternatively, DeWaal discloses that it could require a separate fee to enter the bonus game. Id. In either case, putative wager in DeWaal serves to allow entry into the event. That wager does not, however, serve to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 119, 127. That is, it is those choices, not the wager, that determines whether the player advances at each leg. As such, we are not persuaded DeWaal describes “identifying one or more winners . . . based on the wager.” Similarly, even if we were to consider the player’s choices in DeWaal’s bonus event, such as whether to risk further play or take the buyout (e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 146), to be a form of wager, that wager would be different from the one required in claim 1. In particular, claim 1 requires the wager to be “in response to the . . . players desiring to participate in the . . . event” as well as to “coincide[] with each of the defined number of legs.” Thus, by the time the player in DeWaal is making choices during the event, they have already expressed a desire to participate in the event, and any such “wager” to continue the event is tied only to that leg, not to “each of the defined number of legs.” In other words, claim 1 requires the wager to be something that is set ahead of time, and to contain information that is used, at each leg, to evaluate whether that player remains eligible. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not addressed sufficiently each limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“The other claims and ground addressed in the Petition are deficient for the same reasons. Petitioner’s position regarding independent claim 26 is effectively identical to that of claim 1. Pet. 55 (“DeWaal therefore discloses each limitation of Claim 26 for the reasons discussed above with regard to Claim 1.”). Similarly, Petitioner’s obviousness grounds bring in references for limitations regarding buy-outs and partial buy-outs, not for the wager limitations. See id. at 55–64.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,721,439 - Tiktok Inc. v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 27, 2023 · IPR2022-01546 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7 were unpatentable as obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of the ’154 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Lett’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have been a person with a working knowledge of digital video and audio technologies.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor of Science, a Bachelor of Applied Science, or a Bachelor of Engineering degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to digital video and audio technologies. Id. Alternatively, Petitioner contends, “the person could have also had a Master of Science, Master of Applied Science, or Master of Engineering degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline.” Id. at 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Patent Owner states that “[f]or the purpose of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’154 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that no claim terms require an express construction at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 14; Prelim. Resp. 13. Accordingly, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because none are in dispute.7 See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Third, as noted above, Petitioner also argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that elapsed playback time would be indicated by time stamps included in the audio content. Pet. 15–16. But, on this aspect of Petitioner’s contention, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Lett provides any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a time stamp in Lindroos’ audio data. Id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. As reflected in our discussion above, Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding Exhibits 1010–1013 is unsupported by the references cited. Thus, Petitioner’s assertion that this limitation was “well known” and “would have been obvious” to one of ordinary skill in the art is not supported on the record before us. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate on the present 13 Mr. Lett states that he “refer[s] to these other publications . . . merely for purposes of corroborating this common background knowledge recognizable to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] at the time.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. record that it was “well known and would have been obvious” “for elapsed playback time to be indicated by time stamps included in the audio content.” Pet. 15–16 (citations omitted).14” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,615,154
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.