- Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security LtdInstitution deniedPTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00220 · APJ Richard M Lebovitz · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Patent Owner disclaimed all challenged claims, leaving no claims eligible for inter partes review.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e), “[t]he patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent,” and “[n]o inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” A statutory disclaimer is “considered as part of the original patent” as of the date on which it is “recorded” in the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 253(a). “A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.” Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996). See also Raytheon Technologies Corporation v. General Electric Company, 993 F.3d 1374, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Disclaimed claims are treated as if they never existed.”)” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,431,735 - Luminex International Co., Ltd. v. Signify Holdings B.V.Institution deniedPTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00101 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Menard was a real party in interest served with an infringement complaint more than one year before the Petition was filed.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“Thus, the evidence shows that: (1) Petitioner and Menard are parties to an agreement; (2) under the agreement, Petitioner supplies accused products to Menard; (3) the agreement includes an indemnity provision; (4) under the agreement, Menard made multiple demands for Petitioner to “indemnify or defend as a matter of first defense”; and (5) Petitioner responded to Menard’s multiple demands by, among other things, filing the Petition challenging the claims in the ’336 patent. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 21, 24–26, 28–29, 32–33, 35; Ex. 2002, 5–9 (¶¶ 21, 24–26, 28–29, 32–33, 35); Ex. 2013, 5–9 (¶¶ 21, 24–26, 28–29, 32–33, 35); Ex. 3003 ¶¶ 21, 24–26, 28–29, 32–33, 35. That Petitioner responded to Menard’s multiple demands for Petitioner to “indemnify or defend as a matter of first defense” by filing the Petition shows that the Petition was filed at Menard’s “behest.” Specifically, Menard demanded defense from infringement liability, and Petitioner responded by initiating this proceeding seeking to free Menard from infringement liability for all 20 claims in the ’336 patent. See Pet. 15–89.” slip op. at 36
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“For the real-party-in-interest analysis, we initially consider “whether a petition has been filed at a nonparty’s ‘behest,’” i.e., “the heart of the inquiry.” Uniloc 2017, 989 F.3d at 1027–28; AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351; CTPG at 14. In its third-party complaints, Menard alleged that it and Petitioner “are parties to a Menards Customer Returns, Defective Goods Policy and Conditions of Order Agreement” that requires Petitioner to “indemnify, defend and hold harmless Menard from and against any claims, litigation, or suits,” including “patent infringement arising from Menard’s use, sale or offering for sale of any goods provided by” Petitioner. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 21, 24, 26, 28; Ex. 3003 ¶¶ 21, 24, 26, 28. Menard also alleged that the Conditions of Order Agreement requires Petitioner to “indemnify or defend as a matter of first defense and payment, not as a matter of reimbursement.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 29; Ex. 3003 ¶ 29.” slip op. at 35
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “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) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,299,336 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · IPR2023-01462 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–26 were unpatentable, finding the asserted combinations did not teach blocking an Internet service access request.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15– 17). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Kevin Butler. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15–17. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description, which is consistent with the ’445 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction A claim “shall be construed 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).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). At this stage of the proceeding, neither party presents any claim terms for construction. Pet. 2– 3; Prelim. Resp. 4. Based on the present record, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this time. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374 (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 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that its system can “classify[] and/or control[] network access requests (e.g., IP address requests).” Ex. 1001, 11:27–32 (emphasis added). In particular, the ’455 patent describes an example where “before a connection is allowed to be opened . . . it is blocked and a message is sent back to the application . . . that the network access attempt was not allowed/blocked.” Id. at 91:41– 49 (emphasis added). In contrast, the ’455 patent explains that its system also can “classify[] and/or control[] . . . network capacity/resources usage (e.g., bandwidth usage).” Id. at 11:27–32. For example, a “socket can be allowed to open but after some point in time (e.g., based on network service usage . . . ), the stream is blocked or the socket is terminated.” Id. at 91:49– 54. In other words, the ’455 patent distinguishes between 1) blocking an Internet service access request before a connection is open; and 2) blocking a network stream after a connection is open. Id. at 11:27–32, 91:41–54.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,277,445 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · IPR2023-01362 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 7–9 were unpatentable as obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Here, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Thus, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The ’184 patent states that its system can “classify[] and/or control[] network access requests (e.g., IP address requests).” Ex. 1001, 11:27–32 (emphasis added). In particular, the ’184 patent describes an example where “before a connection is allowed to be opened . . . it is blocked and a message is sent back to the application . . . that the network access attempt was not allowed/blocked.” Id. at 91:41– 49 (emphasis added). In contrast, the ’184 patent explains that its system also can “classify[] and/or control[] . . . network capacity/resources usage (e.g., bandwidth usage).” Id. at 11:27–32. For example, a “socket can be allowed to open but after some point in time (e.g., based on network service usage . . . ), the stream is blocked or the socket is terminated.” Id. at 91:49– 54. In other words, the ’184 patent distinguishes between 1) blocking an Internet service access request before a connection is open; and 2) blocking a network stream after a connection is open. Id. at 11:27–32, 91:41–54; see also id. at 106:39–43 (distinguishing between an “Internet service access request” and “network activity”).” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,271,184 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · IPR2023-01361 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Samsung did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–6, 10–20 would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15– 17). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Kevin Butler. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15–17. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. Prelim. Resp. 4. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the 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). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 2–3; Prelim. Resp. 4. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Here, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Thus, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“allowed to open but after some point in time (e.g., based on network service usage . . . ), the stream is blocked or the socket is terminated.” Id. at 91:49– 54. In other words, the ’184 patent distinguishes between 1) blocking an Internet service access request before a connection is open; and 2) blocking a network stream after a connection is open. Id. at 11:27–32, 91:41–54; see also id. at 106:39–43 (distinguishing between an “Internet service access request” and “network activity”). On this record, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that the combination of Rao, Oestvall, and Freund teaches blocking an Internet service access request. First, Petitioner asserts that Rao’s applications “communicat[e] over the Internet and receiv[e] service from servers,” and thus a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood or found it obvious that Rao’s applications would be configured to send packetized communications over the Internet to such servers requesting access to their corresponding services (an Internet service access request).” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 107–108; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 90, 179, 184). Even if Petitioner is correct that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that Rao’s applications send an Internet service access request, that alone does not show that Rao also teaches blocking the Internet service access request. See id.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,271,184 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2024 · IPR2023-01253 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 were unpatentable; the asserted art did not teach or suggest indicating network access conditions to the application.
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 in view of the present record 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. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“obvious because “Rao’s device can run the Java operating system” and a skilled artisan “would have understood and found obvious that the application would have received an indication, via the Java sockets API, of the network access condition.” Pet. 29. We disagree. Although Rao mentions Java as one in a long list of example operating systems (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 128 ), Petitioner’s argument is insufficient because it does not explain why using Java necessarily means applications will receive the specific indication claimed—one that notifies an application of network access conditions. Likewise, Petitioner offers no reason why one skilled in the art using Petitioner’s asserted combination of Rao and Oestvall would have been motivated to do so. See id. Absent such an explanation, Petitioner’s argument amounts to no more than asserting that Rao teaches using Java and that Java sockets were known. Petitioner’s argument lacks known and why employing that notification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (noting that “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2 at least two years of industry experience in services and application implementation in communication networks,” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 17; see Pet. 11 n.3. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. On this record, we agree with Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 2–3; Prelim. Resp. 8. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,143,976 - Fitesa Simpsonville, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01450 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding the cited art previously considered or cumulative and no material Office error shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and evidence of record, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential).” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,513,801 - Fitesa Simpsonville, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01451 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding the prior art previously considered and no material error by the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“b) Advanced Bionics Framework Part (2) Having determined that the “same or substantially the same prior art” previously was presented to the Office, we now consider whether Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates that the Office materially erred. In assessing the second part of the Advanced Bionics Framework, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether material error has been shown. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “An example of a material error may include misapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. However, “[i]f reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Id. at 9. Petitioner bears the burden of showing that the Examiner materially erred. Id. at 8.” slip op. at 19
Discretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,326,276 - Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01349 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . 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 set forth below, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim on any ground asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Given this, to show that Blangero’s disclosure of MgO or LiF in its coating teaches or suggests a rock-salt crystal structure, Petitioner needs to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art either would have understood the compounds to have a rock-salt crystal structure when manufactured according to the disclosure of Blangero or would have chosen to use MgO or LiF in a rock-salt crystal structure rather than in another available form. On the first point, Petitioner argues that “‘the stable phase at room temperature and pressure conditions’ of MgO is ‘a rocksalt cubic structure of NaCl (space group Fm-3m).’” Pet. 28 (quoting Ex. 1030, 16; citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 142). But, as Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hayes, points out, Blangero does not teach forming MgO in a room-temperature process. Ex. 1003 ¶ 142 (Blangero’s “second firing step” occurs at “925 °C for 12 hours”); see Ex. 1005 ¶ 110 (teaching the firing step to which Dr. Hayes refers). Thus, the significance of rock-salt-type MgO being “the stable phase at room temperature and pressure conditions” is unclear. To the extent that Dr. Hayes explains why MgO, which “is well known to crystallize even at substantially lower temperatures,” such as “room temperature and pressure conditions,” would “do so more readily at [a higher temperature of] 925 °C,” this argument is not discussed, nor even cited, in the Petition. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–94; see Pet. 28. Accordingly, any reliance on this argument by Petitioner constitutes improper incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art either would have understood MgO to have a rock-salt crystal structure when manufactured according to the disclosure of Blangero or would have chosen to use MgO in a rock-salt crystal structure rather than in another available form. Similarly, with respect to LiF, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Hayes sufficiently explains the choice of rock-salt-type material over other options. Pet. 29 (arguing only that Ex. 1013 shows that “LiF has rock salt structure”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 143 (same). Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Blangero teaches or suggests a rock-salt crystal structure by virtue of its teaching that either MgO or LiF is present.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“The 2012 study on which Petitioner relies did not find “superior structural stability” over other lithium-titanium-oxygen compounds, as Petitioner argues. Instead, the study noted that the structure of “LiTiO2 prepared by high-temperature sintering TiO2 with lithium salt . . . impl[ies] LiTiO2 has superior structural stability in organic electrolyte as compared to other Li-Ti-O oxides.” Ex. 1029, 1. Thus, the structural stability was implied from the chemical structure of the material rather than found through study of the material. Moreover, the implied structural stability was only for LiTiO2 that was prepared in a particular way, by high-temperature sintering of TiO2 with lithium salt, and Petitioner does not allege that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have prepared the LiTiO2 they substituted for Blangero’s Li2TiO3 using this method. As for Petitioner’s argument that the study found that LiTiO2 outperformed Li2TiO3, we are not persuaded. The study compared particles with an LiTiO2 coating to uncoated particles, not to particles coated with Li2TiO3. Ex. 1029, 4, Figs. 4(c), 4(d). Although the study notes that particles coated with “[m]onoclinic Li2TiO3 and spinel Li4Ti5O12” exhibit “a noticeable capacity decay . . . when charged at high operating voltage and cycled above room temperature,” it concludes only that particles coated with LiTiO2 “exhibited inspiring high-voltage cycling capability as well as thermal stability than the pristine counterpart.” Id. at 1, 4. In addition, the pristine particles used in the study were made from “Li[NixCoyMnz]O2 (0≤x,y,z<1) (called as LNCM),” and the particles in Blangero do not contain either nickel or manganese in their cores. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9–40 (particles contain lithium, oxygen, cobalt, and metals chosen from the group consisting of aluminum, gallium, boron, magnesium, titanium, iron, copper, calcium, barium, yttrium, tin, antimony, sodium, zinc, zirconium, silicon); Ex. 1029, 1. Petitioner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the study’s results to extend to Blangero’s particles made from a different material. Pet. 29–30. Because Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Blangero teaches or suggests a second region comprising a rock-salt crystal structure or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to substitute rocksalt-type LiTiO2 for the materials disclosed in Blangero, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on claim 1 on its Blangero-based grounds.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, “[i]ndividuals with different education and additional experience could still [have been] of ordinary skill in the art if that additional experience compensate[d] for a deficit in their education and experience.” Id. On the present record, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’660 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’660 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,043,660 - Ao Kaspersky Lab v. Open Text Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01160 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Ideses, alone or with Sharma, teaches selectively turning feature-vector features on or off during classification.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Petitioner fails to show how the disclosures relied on in Ideses teach or suggest “generating a feature vector from [a] plurality of static data points using a classifier” where features are “selectively turned on or off” based on a value of one of the static data points. Even if Ideses’s omission of insignificant features could be considered “turn[ing] [them] on or off,” that happens in the creation of the classifier. Ideses does not teach or suggest “wherein one or more features of the feature vector are selectively turned on or off” subsequent to “generating a feature vector . . . using a classifier,” as recited in each challenged claim.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the claims are directed to the classification stage, as they require extracting “a plurality of static data points” from an executable file and “generating a feature vector from [that] plurality of static data points using a classifier” (emphasis added). The claims also recite that the classifier has been “trained to classify” (emphasis added). Further, the claims recite that “one or more features of the feature vector” are selectively turned on or off, indicating that the feature vector has been generated. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently for institution that Ideses teaches or suggests a classification method in which one or more features of a feature vector generated from a plurality of static data points are selectively turned on or off based on the value of one of the static data points. As explained in the summary of Ideses above, Ideses describes “methods and systems for generating classifiers” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 2) in which “extracted features [may be] identified for pruning to generate the group of classifying features,” and “the selection [may be] based on identifying a classification effectiveness rank for each of the features of the training software applications” or “based on identifying resource requirements for each of the features of the training software applications.” See id. ¶¶ 98, 99. “[T]he group of classifying features [may be] selected based on the significance of the extracted features,” such that “[s]ignificant features, such as those that have a large effect on the classification outcomes, may be retained” and “[i]nsignificant features, such as those that have a small, negligible or no effect on classification outcome may be pruned.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 106.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“The Petition includes no arguments similar to Dr. Subrahmanian’s testimony in connection with element 18.5.d. Pet. 27–28. Instead, for element 18.5.d, the Petition includes a statement that Ideses “discloses” element 18.5.d and quotes four sentences of Ideses. Id. Additionally, Exhibits 1028 and 1029 are not raised anywhere in the Petition. Id. at 2 (not including either Exhibits 1028 or 1029 in the unpatentability grounds), 11– 18 (providing overviews of only Ideses and Sharma), 18–31, 42, 48 (setting forth an element-by-element analysis based on the teachings of only Ideses). To the extent Petitioner intends to rely on Exhibits 1028 and 1029 to remedy the deficiencies in Ideses, Petitioner’s analysis in that regard needed to be set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). Also, although Dr. Subrahmanian testifies regarding research for identifying the best subset of features from a larger set of features and adding features to a given set of features, based on Exhibits 1028 and 1029 that research relates to generating classifiers. See Ex. 1028, 182 (describing “feature reduction phase” of the experiment), 183 (describing subsequent “classification stage”); Ex. 1029, 5–6 (describing that feature extraction “was performed,” the classifier was “optimized”, and then the classifier was “run on the independent test data for analysis”). Petitioner has not shown sufficiently for institution that Ideses teaches or suggests “wherein one or more features of the feature vector are selectively turned on or off” subsequent to “generating a feature vector . . . using a classifier,” as recited in each challenged claim. Dr. Subrahmanian does not testify regarding any research or work involving identifying the best subset of features or adding new features to a given suite of features during the classification stage. Also, neither the Petition nor Dr. Subrahmanian’s testimony includes a reason to modify the teachings of Ideses to address element 18.5.d. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 164–168; Pet. 2, 11–18, 18–31, 42, 48. We, therefore, find that Dr. Subrahmanian’s testimony does not remedy the deficiencies discussed with respect to arguments in the Petition regarding Ideses.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Considering the subject matter of the ’869 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for an ordinary level of skill. Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’869 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.5” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,409,869
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.