- Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00075 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petition grounds and granted Apple’s motion to join the Google IPR, subject to participation limits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least 1 claim of the ’289 patent. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’289 patent. We also grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“We determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that joinder is appropriate because, as set forth above, the Petition is substantively identical to the petition in the Google IPR, contains the same grounds based on the same evidence, and relies on the same declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe. Mot., passim; Ex. 1003.” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 9,679,289 - Apple Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-01399 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 on the petition’s grounds and granted Apple’s motion to join IPR2024-00782.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“As we explain above, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to each of the claims challenged in the petition. Thus, Petitioner has shown that the Petition warrants institution.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“The Petition does not present any new grounds or issues. Joinder Mot. 1, 3–5. Petitioner agrees to the schedule in the Google IPR and, thus, has shown that the trial schedule is not likely to be affected by joinder. Id. at 3, 5–6. No changes in the schedule are anticipated or necessary, and the limited participation, if at all, of Petitioner will not impact the timeline of the ongoing trial. Petitioner has agreed to an “understudy” role, which will simplify matters in the ongoing Google IPR and will be an efficient use of resources. Id. at 3, 5–6. Petitioner will assume a primary role only if Google ceases to participate in the Google IPR. Id. at 6. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that we should exercise our discretion to join Petitioner to the Google IPR (IPR2024-00782).” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 8,646,042 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00919 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 would have been obvious over Leaning.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“The Board’s application of these factors “is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner.” Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 2, 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). “Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors,” and if the second petitioner and the first petitioner have a “significant relationship with respect to . . . [the challenged patent],” then the Board will consider the first petition in its General Plastic analysis. Id. at 9–10.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“2. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during Resp. 14, 16–17) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][2] (see Pet. 19–21) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4–6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Leaning is substantially the same as Leaning US, which was previously presented to the Office. b. Advanced Bionics Part Two To determine whether Petitioner has shown material error, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments,” and if that record “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f).” Id. As Petitioner notes (see Pet. 69), the record regarding the Office’s” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“On this record, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning teaches that each copy of the video is divided into sub-files that correspond to different temporal portions of the video. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:20– 28, 3:5–18, p.7 (table). We are also preliminarily persuaded Leaning teaches that each sub-file represents the same fixed time period (e.g., four seconds), and that each of Leaning’s sub-files has a corresponding sub-file in the other copies. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 6:21–7:2 (including table), 12:8–20. Moreover, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning’s sub-files each have a time index because the sub-file names are sequentially numbered. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 7:1–2, 12:16–20, p. 7 (table); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 73. Accordingly, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Leaning teaches elements 1[A][3], 1[A][4], and 1[A][5].8 1[B]: “requesting by the media player a plurality of sequential ones of the files of one of the copies from the set of servers over a plurality of Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indexes;” Petitioner contends that Leaning teaches and/or renders obvious element 1[B]. Pet. 29–35. According to Petitioner, Leaning teaches that terminal 3 requests a plurality of sequential sub-files of one of the copies from server 1. Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:12–19, 2:15–18, 5:4– 6:2, 6:27–7:2, 8:6–16, 23:3–10 (claim 1), 24:28–35 (claim 11), 25:17–20 (claim 16); Ex. 1003 ¶ 79; Pet. 21–29). Petitioner also asserts that an 8 Although we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative contention that element 1[A][5] would have been obvious over Leaning, we will evaluate that contention in our final written decision if appropriate.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,868,772 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00918 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 and 12–16 would have been obvious over Leaning.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“when there is an earlier petition challenging the same patent. See General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15–16. To determine whether to deny the subsequent petition, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors (the “General Plastic factors”): 1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; 2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it; 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; 4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; 5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; 6. the finite resources of the Board; and 7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review. Id. at 16.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“when a petition presents “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments [that] previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To evaluate whether such a denial is appropriate, the Board determines: (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 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). In applying this two-part Advanced Bionics framework, we evaluate several non-exclusive factors, including: 13 Like the parties, we focus our analysis on Leaning. See Pet. 67–69; Prelim. Resp. 14–22; Prelim. Reply 1–4; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–4. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s Leaning-only ground meets the standard for institution, and we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative ground based on Leaning and Gamble. See supra §§ II.E–F. Moreover, the statutory purpose of Section 325(d) would not be undermined by instituting on both challenges given Gamble’s limited role in Petitioner’s ground (see Pet. 58–60) and during prosecution (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, 208). art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which petitioner relies on the prior art or patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework (i.e., whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office), and factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to the second part (i.e., “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of the prior art or arguments). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during prosecution. See Pet. 67–68. We agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 14–17) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][3] (see Pet. 20–22) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4–6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Leaning is substantially the same as Leaning US, which was previously presented to the Office. b. Advanced Bionics Part Two To determine whether Petitioner has shown material error, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments,” and if that record “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f).” Id. consideration of Leaning US is nearly silent. Neither the applicants nor the examiner discussed Leaning US, and the examiner did not use it as a basis of any rejection. Rather, Leaning US was only cited on a twenty-five page Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) along with 237 other references. See Ex. 1002, 7–31. Given the volume of the applicants’ disclosure, it would not be surprising if the examiner overlooked material information in it. Because the Office’s evaluation of Leaning US was minimal, we find that factor (c) weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution. As for factors (e) and (f), Petitioner has shown that the Office erred by” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Motivation foundInstituted
“The legal question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,407,564 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00917 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on both asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“when there is an earlier petition challenging the same patent. See General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15–16. To determine whether to deny the subsequent petition, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors (the “General Plastic factors”): 1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; 2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it; 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; 4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; 6. the finite resources of the Board; and 7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review. Id. at 16.” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“when a petition presents “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments [that] previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To evaluate whether such a denial is appropriate, the Board determines: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially 14 Like the parties, we focus our analysis on Leaning. See Pet. 59–61; Prelim. Resp. 14–23; Prelim. Reply 1–4; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–4. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s Leaning-only ground meets the standard for institution, and we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative ground based on Leaning and Ala-Honkola. See supra §§ II.E–F. Moreover, the statutory purpose of Section 325(d) would not be undermined by instituting on both challenges given Ala-Honkola’s limited role in Petitioner’s ground (see Pet. 50–52) and during prosecution (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, 81–82). and (2) if either condition of 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). In applying this two-part Advanced Bionics framework, we evaluate several non-exclusive factors, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which petitioner relies on the prior art or patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework (i.e., whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office), and factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to the second part (i.e., “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. 2. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during prosecution of related, ancestor applications. See Pet. 60. We agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 14–15, 17–18) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][3] (see Pet. 20–22) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4– 6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19– 27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“On this record, the findings from the ITC Investigation regarding objective indicia do not undermine the sufficiency of Petitioner’s obviousness showing for purposes of institution. Our preliminary record includes no evidence of long-felt need, failure of others, unexpected results, commercial success, or industry praise. In addition, Patent Owner has not yet shown a nexus between any such evidence and the claimed invention. See Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“In order to accord substantial weight to secondary considerations in an obviousness analysis, the evidence of secondary considerations must have a nexus to the claims, i.e., there must be a legally and factually sufficient connection between the evidence and the patented invention.”); see also id. (“The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.”); ZUP, LLC patentee “bears the burden of production with respect to evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness”). Patent Owner will have the opportunity during the trial to present and develop arguments that objective indicia show that the challenged claims would not have been obvious, and our final written decision will be based on the full trial record.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,757,156 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00940 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail and declining § 325(d) denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). 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 institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–20 of the ’234 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“(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 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). In applying this two-part Advanced Bionics framework, we evaluate several non-exclusive factors, including:” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree) and two years of experience in networking or streaming media, or a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner “disputes Petitioner’s definition,” but does not explain what it disputes. Prelim. Resp. 5. Notwithstanding, Patent Owner asserts that “resolution of such dispute is not necessary for the Board to make a determination regarding institution.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’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 ’234 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, our claim construction standard is the same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard applied by district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,991,234 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00784 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim across the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The plain meaning of “an integrated, secure memory storing local, secured information,” as claimed, suggests an integrated, secure memory for storing information locally, wherein the information is secured. See Pet. 28, 59; see also Prelim. Resp. 19–21. Further, nothing in the Specification clearly limits or redefines “local, secured information” to “information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK,” as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 23. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification “clearly defines ‘which information is used as local secured information.’” Prelim. Resp. 22. Although Patent Owner points to an “instance” in the Specification that it alleges is such a “clear[] defin[ition]” (id.), this portion of the Specification merely shows an exemplary embodiment and not a definition. See Ex. 1001, 3:50–57. In particular, the language Patent Owner points to in the Specification provides that “[i]n this example, the sensor 108 contains three of the service block access keys 118A, D, F,” wherein “[t]he service block access keys 118 allow the sensor 108 to unlock information stored in the corresponding service blocks 112, which information is used as local secured information.” See id. (emphasis added). That is, although the referenced portion of the Specification indicates that, in an example, information stored in a “service block” can be used as “local, secured information,” nothing in the Specification limits “local, secured information” to “information stored within service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK,” as Patent Owner contends.6 Prelim. Resp. 23. Any special definition for “local, secured information” limiting it to “information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK” must be set forth in the Specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We do not discern such clarity, deliberateness, and precision to be present here.” slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “the District Court found it necessary to construe the term ‘enabled.’” Prelim. Resp. 4. In particular, we disagree that the District Court in the Samsung case provided any construction for the term “enabled.” Id. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. (citing Ex. 2002, 26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Ex. 2002, 26.7 That is, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Thus, the District Court’s determination that “hybrid device” is not indefinite did not constitute a construction of that term, much less provide a construction of “enabled” recited elsewhere in the claim. In any case, even if assuming arguendo that the referenced portion of the district court’s Memorandum indicates that a POSITA could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim (id.), nothing in the Memorandum provides a definition of “enabled” as being limited to when an application, function, or service “receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key,” as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 8. b) Means-plus function analysis Patent Owner further contends that the term “enabling” “may further be defined by way of a means-plus-function analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 8. According to Patent Owner, “§ 112, para 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting a sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Patent Owner contends that because none of “the ‘local secured information’, ‘wireless communication interface’ [and] ‘enablement signal’ provide sufficiently definite structure,” the term 7 Even if the Court’s explanation that “[a]n application, function, or service is ‘enabled’ by a PDK when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key” is an express construction, the Board is not required to adopt that construction. See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“There is no dispute that the board is not generally bound by a prior judicial construction of a claim term.”).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions. In particular, we are unpersuaded that “enabling” may be defined by way of means-plus-function analysis. Prelim. Resp. 8. As Petitioner points out, “none of the claims of the ’960 patent recite the disputed limitation in ‘means-plus-function’ or ‘step-plus-function’ format.” Prelim. Reply 2. As Petitioner contends, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Id.; see also Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Although this presumption is rebuttable and can be overcome if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure (see Raining Computing v. Samsung Electronics America, 998 F.3d 1002, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2021)), we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that claim terms “wireless communication interface,” “local secured information,” and “enablement signal” fail to recite sufficiently definite structure. That is, Patent Owner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the terms could not be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art “to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure for the claimed functions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that the terms are “not used as ‘generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions.’” Prelim. Reply 3; see Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368. As Petitioner points out, “when a ‘structure-connoting term . . . is coupled with a description of the ‘term’s’ operation’ § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.” Id.; accord Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–20 of the ’960 patent to determine whether: 1) claims 1–6, 8–11, and 14–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Dua and Giobbi ’157; 2) claims 1–7, 10, 11, and 14–19 are unpatentable under 35” slip op. at 49
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,073,960 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00783 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–20 on five obviousness grounds: Dua and Giobbi ’157; that combination with Kotola; Buer; Buer with Giobbi ’157; and Buer with Nishikawa.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–20 of the ’289 patent to determine whether:” slip op. at 46
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“secured information,” as claimed, suggests an integrated, secure memory for storing information locally, wherein the information is secured. See Pet. 26– 27; see also Prelim. Resp. 28. Further, nothing in the Specification clearly limits or redefines “local, secured information” to “information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK,” as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 27. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification “clearly defines ‘which information is used as local secured information.’” Prelim. Resp. 28. Although Patent Owner points to an “instance” in the Specification that it alleges is such a “clear[] defin[ition],” this portion of the Specification merely shows an exemplary embodiment and not a definition. See Ex. 1001, 3:43–50. The language Patent Owner points to in the Specification provides that “[i]n this example, the sensor 108 contains three of the service block access keys 118A, D, F,” wherein “[t]he service block access keys 118 allow the sensor 108 to unlock information stored in the corresponding service blocks 112, which information is used as local secured information.” Prelim. Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:43–50) (emphasis added). That is, although the referenced portion of the Specification indicates that, in an example, information stored in a “service block” can be used as “local secured information,” nothing in the Specification limits “local, secured information” to “information stored within service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK,” as Patent Owner contends.7 Id. Any special definition for “local, secured information” limiting it to “information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK” must be set forth in the Specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We do not discern such clarity, deliberateness, and precision to be present here. In view of the plain language of the claims and the Specification, we determine that the term “local, secured information” encompasses information stored locally on an integrated, secure memory, wherein the information is secured, and is not limited to information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The plain language of “hybrid device” does not suggest a requirement that the “hybrid device” comprises an integrated PDK. Further, nothing in the Specification clearly limits or redefines “hybrid device” to a device comprising an integrated PDK, as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 3– 4. Although Patent Owner contends that the District Court construed “hybrid device” as “comprising an integrated personal digital key (PDK)” (id. (citing Ex. 2001, 3)), as Patent Owner points out, the District Court’s construction was predicated on the use of “PDK” in the “hybrid device” recited in the independent claims of a family member of the ’289 patent. Prelim. Resp. 3–4. In view of the plain language of the claims and the Specification, we determine that the term “hybrid device” recited in claims 1–16 and 19 is not limited to “comprising an integrated personal digital key (PDK).” We determine no further explicit construction of this term is necessary to resolve the parties’ issues in controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“are unpersuaded that “enabling” may be defined by way of means-plus-function analysis. Prelim. Resp. 14. As Petitioner points out, “none of the claims of the ’289 patent recite the disputed limitation in ‘means-plus-function’ or ‘step-plus-function’ format.” Prelim. Reply 2. As Petitioner contends, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Id.; see also Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Although, as Patent Owner argues, this presumption is rebuttable and can be overcome “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure” (Prelim. Sur-reply 1 (citing Raining Computing v. Samsung Electronics America, 998 F.3d 1002, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2021))), we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that “PDK,” “RDC,” “enabling signal,” and “local secured information” fail to recite sufficiently definite structure. Prelim. Resp. 14–17. That is, Patent Owner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the terms could not be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art “to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure for the claimed functions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that the terms are “not used as ‘generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions.’” Prelim. Reply 3; see Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368. As Petitioner points out, “when a ‘structure-connoting term . . . is coupled with a description of the ‘term’s’ operation’ § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.” Id.; accord Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,289 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00782 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 based on six § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“whether to institute an inter partes review. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“are unpersuaded that “enabling” may be defined by way of means-plus-function analysis. Prelim. Resp. 17. As Petitioner points out, “none of the independent claims of the ’042 patent recite the disputed limitation in ‘means-plus-function’ or ‘step-plus-function’ format.” Prelim. Reply 2. As Petitioner contends, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Id.; see also Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Although, as Patent Owner argues, this presumption is rebuttable and can be overcome “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure” (Prelim. Sur-reply 1 (citing Raining Computing v. Samsung Electronics America, 998 F.3d 1002, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2021))), we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that “PDK,” “RDC,” and “enabling signal,” fail to recite sufficiently definite structure. Prelim. Resp. 17–20. That is, Patent Owner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the terms could not be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art “to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure for the claimed functions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. According to Petitioner, the terms are “not used as ‘generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions.’” Prelim. Reply 3; see Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368. As Petitioner points out, “when a ‘structure-connoting term . . . is coupled with a description of the ‘term’s’ operation’ § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.” Id.; see also Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368).” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “the District Court found it necessary to construe the term ‘enabled.’” Prelim. Resp. 13. In particular, we disagree that the District Court in the Samsung litigation provided any construction for the term “enabled.” Id. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. (citing Ex. 2002, 26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Ex. 2002, 26.8 That is, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Thus, the District Court’s determination that “hybrid device” is not indefinite did not constitute a construction of that term, much less provide a construction of “enabled” recited elsewhere in the claims. In any case, even if assuming arguendo that the referenced portion of the District Court’s Memorandum indicates that a POSITA could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim (id.), nothing in the Memorandum provides a definition of “enabled” as being limited to “exchanging an access key for information held within a service block of a PDK,” as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 28.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,646,042 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00775 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 12, and 14–17 are obvious over Burger and claims 3, 10, and 13 over Burger and Robinson.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 31
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of skill in the art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in wireless communications security,” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–23). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of skill or propose an alternative. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“In IPR2024-00232, we made clear that “exclud[ing] any active participant in a transaction” from the construction of third-party trusted authority would exclude preferred embodiments of the ’730 patent and, therefore, is presumptively incorrect. IPR2024-00232, Paper 10 at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:42–46, 6:32–64, 7:10–22, Figs. 3–5, 7; Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). We also explained that “active participation alone does not make an entity a party to the transaction.” Id. at 22–23. Instead, we evaluate a party’s relationship to the transaction to determine whether it is a principal party to the transaction or a third-party. Id. at 11 (“The ‘witness’ role mentioned in the Specification (Ex. 1001, 6:35–38) refers to an agent’s relationship to the principal parties to the transaction, not to the level of activity the agent engages in.”), 22 (“We agree with Petitioner that, in this example, the TPCH is separate from, and thus a third party to, the principal parties to the transaction (the user and the vendor) and also a third party to the financial institution that pays the vendor.”). To be clear, below, we evaluate Petitioner’s showing as to obviousness over Burger based on the ordinary meaning of third-party trusted authority, namely, “a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“2. Remaining claim terms (including “access message”) Patent Owner acknowledges that “the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘access message’ is a message enabling entry to, communication with, or use of an object,” but argues that, “to capture all the disclosed embodiments,” enabling or announcing access,” allegedly consistent with a district court construction. Prelim. Resp. 2–7. As Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of success under the arguably narrower ordinary meaning of “access message,” it is not necessary, at this stage of the proceeding, to further construe this term. Based on the preliminary record, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,352,730
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.