- Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Jabaa, L.L.C.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00916 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 7–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 7 would be shown unpatentable over Rescorla and Mathiassen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“b) Petitioner Shows a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing Based on the present record, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to claim 7 as unpatentable over Rescorla and Mathiassen.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rescorla’s SSL/TLS handshake functions with Mathiassen’s portable device “to enhance security through biometric authentication,” “for increased interoperability,” and for the “security, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–72), 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4, 12, 15, 47, 48; Ex. 1015, xvii), 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 76), 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 84), 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91–92). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Mathiassen’s portable device for website authentication as described by Rescorla, for requesting the Certificate and CertificateVerify messages, and for biometrically controlled access to a secure key for authenticating a user to a server. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 98; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12, 50, 82), 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63, 108; Ex. 1015, 153), 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 111; Ex. 1015, 153). In the proposed combination, Mathiassen’s biometric authentication would be implemented after a client receives Rescorla’s Handshake: Certificate Request message and before the client sends a Handshake: Certificate message; the response to the Certificate Request would include biometric authentication of the user; and Rescorla’s Certificate and CertificateVerify messages would be encrypted as described by Mathiassen. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 65; Ex. 1015, 98, Fig. 4.2), 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 110), 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 77–83). Petitioner argues that the proposed combination would not require specialized equipment and would not be limited to any specific protocol. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 71; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 95).” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,637 - Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Jabaa, L.L.C.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00915 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6 and 21–24 for all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Mathiassen and Ryan.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–6 and 21–24 of the ’637 patent on all presented challenges. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and one to two years of work experience in electronic device design, secure electronic communications, or a related field” and that “[l]ess experience may be necessary with additional education, and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–41). Based on the preliminary record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“Petitioner proposes interpreting “resident within” recited by claims 1 and 21 to mean “temporary storage of the software while the software is being executed” with citations to the Specification, declaration, and other prior art. Pet. 8–11. Petitioner also proposes that other terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–44). At this stage, the language of the claims and the cited portions of the Specification and declaration support Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “resident within.” Pet. 8–9; Ex. 1001, 5:12–20, 7:63–65, 8:57–58; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 45–54. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “resident within” to mean “temporary storage of the software while the software is being executed.” Pet. 8. We also determine that express claim interpretation of other terms is not necessary to determine whether Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“Petitioner argues that Mathiassen and Ryan are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of the ’637 patent. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–74). According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to modify Mathiassen’s portable device to conduct and authenticate transactions, as taught by Ryan.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 72); see also id. at 19–21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74–77; Ex. 1005, code (57), ¶¶ 50, 65–98; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 105, 223–225, 232, 235, 238, 249, 368). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to modify Mathiassen’s portable device to conduct transactions using a wireless interface, as taught by Ryan, to enable Mathiassen’s portable device to communicate wirelessly with external devices.” Id. at 18; see also id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78; Ex. 1005, code (57); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 151, 223– 225, 235, 248). Petitioner further argues that the proposed combination would have merely been prior art elements combined according to known methods to yield a predictable result. Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 79). Petitioner additionally argues that the proposed combination would have been modifying a similar device in a same way. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 81; Ex. 1005 ¶ 50, Fig. 2b; Ex. 1006 ¶ 175). In Petitioner’s view, the proposed combination also represents a mere substitution of one known element in the field for another known element. Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:50–54; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 223, 235). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,637 - PTAB · Dec 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00943 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 91–152, 158, and 159 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 91 is obvious over Rao and Fadell.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“would have combined Fadell’s notifications with Rao’s system with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 6–8; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 317–328, 332. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have “combined the functionality of Rao and Fadell (e.g., of Rao’s remote access client and Fadell’s resource utilization component) to apply a policy that applies a prioritization to network packets from a background activity and notifies a user when resource usage approaches a threshold.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 321; see also id. ¶¶ 318–320 (discussing the advantages of Rao and Fadell). In such a system, “when the resource usage threshold is met, network packets from the background activity would be queued and deprioritized . . . , and the user would be notified of the resource usage threshold and afforded options for how to proceed.” Id. ¶ 322. This combination “would have improved . . . Rao’s system by enabling a policy that limits (potentially unwanted or unnecessary) background activity and notifies the user when resource usage limits are reached” and “enable[] a user to selectively control when background activity is deprioritized and held in queues to avoid data usage overages.” Id. ¶ 323. Because such a combination “would have been nothing more than the simple combination of known elements to obtain predictable results,” a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Rao with Fadell.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 327.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states “[n]o terms require construction to resolve this Petition.” Pet. 3. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.7 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 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,589,541 - PTAB · Dec 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00942 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 2–23, 26, 41–60, 63, 64, 155–157, and 160–171 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood Rao anticipates claim 3.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Moreover, the reference must also “disclose[] within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a similar field, and approximately two years of industry or academic experience in a field related to computer software development and/or computer networking.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 50–52). Petitioner further argues that “[w]ork experience can substitute for education, and additional education can substitute for work experience.” Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 50–52). Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the field of the invention of the ’541 patent and not yet disputed by Patent Owner, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art.6” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states “[n]o terms require construction to resolve this Petition.” Pet. 3. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.7 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 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,589,541 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · PGR2024-00026 · APJ Hyun J Jung · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–7 and all grounds because Petitioner showed it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim lacks written-description support.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage, Petitioner’s arguments, cited portions of the Specification, and supporting testimonial evidence demonstrate that it is more likely than not that claims 1–7 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“patent describes that “angular position transducer 78 is placed on top of swing leg pivot shaft 24” and that “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate and duplicates the angular movements of swing leg 20 about the pivot shaft.” Ex. 1001, 12:15–16, 12:20–22, Figs. 5, 7. The ’723 patent also describes that “[a]ngular position transducer 78 is mounted inside . . . protective can 90 . . . which is bolted to hinge bracket 28 via an upright holding arm 92” and that “trigger pin 94 projects upwardly from the top surface of pivot shaft 24 and cooperates with angular position transducer 78 to generate an angular position signal.” Id. at 12:28–33, Fig. 5. These descriptions expressly convey that angular position transducer 78 is on pivot shaft 24 and mounted inside protective can 90 that is bolted to hinge bracket 28. Id. at 12:15–16, 12:20–22, 12:28–30, Figs. 5, 7; see also Prelim. Resp. 17 (describing the same embodiment shown in Figs. 5 and 7). According to Petitioner, the ’723 patent describes the pivot shaft as part of the hinge bracket, not the modular frame or swing leg. Pet. 109–110 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:42–46, 12:17–22). On the preliminary record, we agree because the cited portions of the Specification describe that a “hinge bracket is interposed between each swing leg and an associated surface of the bolsters and includes a fixed, upright pivot shaft that pivotally engages the swing leg for pivotal movements” and “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate.” Ex. 1001, 7:42–45, 12:20–21. We also agree that “even if one were to find that the hinge bracket is part of either the modular frame or swing leg (contrary to the claims and specification treating these all as separate components), the specification would only provide written description for one of the claimed alternatives.” Pet. 110 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 199).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this preliminary stage, we determine that express claim interpretation is not necessary to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We will also not use our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition based on arguments previously presented in IPR2021-00135, because Petitioner relies on a Board determination regarding claim 8 from IPR2021- 00136, not arguments previously made for claim 1 in IPR2021-00135. Pet. 111–115, 119; Prelim. Resp. 8–9; Prelim. Sur-reply 5. Furthermore, we determined the effective filing date of claim 8 of the ’571 patent without deciding, that other challenged claims, such as claim 1, were entitled to their earliest possible effective filing date. See Godberson-Smith, Paper 61 at 11, 12.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,772,723 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · IPR2024-00835 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be unpatentable over CIII and Rio.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Advanced Bionics stated that: If, after review of factors (a), (b), and (d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, then factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments. It informs, therefore, the petitioner’s showing under factors (e) and (f), which focus on the petitioner’s evidence of previous Office error regardless of the context in which the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented. For example, if the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f). On the other hand, if the alleged error is a disagreement with a specific finding of record by the Office, then ordinarily the petitioner’s required showing of material error must overcome persuasively that specific finding of record. That is, although Becton, Dickinson factor (c) evaluates “the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection,” the focus should be on the record when determining whether the Office erred in evaluating such art or arguments.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d) Petitioner Shows a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing Based on the preliminary record, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge that CIII and Rio teach, suggest, or would have been understood to disclose the limitations of claim 1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“track” that “is configured to rotate . . . relative to the jacking column,” Petitioner proposes modifying CIII in view of Rio “by positioning Rio’s rotary actuator 44 between the jacking column and crawler track, and using that rotary actuator to rotate CIII’s crawler track relative to the entire jacking column, rather than just its outer cylinder.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89) (emphasis added); see also id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 92; Ex. 1006, 5:8–11, 6:2–6). Petitioner argues such a modification would have been a design choice, one of a finite number of alternatives, obvious to try, and a known design that provides maneuverability. Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61–67; Ex. 1006, 5:8–11; Ex. 1007, 5:14–59, Figs. 4–5; Ex. 1008, 7:35– 53, Figs. 7, 20; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 5, 19–20, Fig. 2; Ex. 1011, 4:7–16, Fig. 3; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 41, 44–45). At this stage, Petitioner’s arguments and cited evidence sufficiently support for institution that the modification would have been made so that the proposed combination would have had “a crawler track” that “is configured to rotate . . . relative to the jacking column.” Regarding claim 1’s “slew drive,” as discussed above, Petitioner proposes modifying CIII so that rotary actuator 44, the asserted slew drive, would be between the jacking column and crawler track. See Pet. 29–31. Petitioner also argues that, in the proposed combination, “actuating the rotary actuator causes the crawler track to rotate relative to the entire jacking column.” Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 92). The present record supports Petitioner’s argument that Rio’s worm gear actuator would have been understood to disclose a slew drive with support from the ’318 patent itself, the opinion of its declarant, and deposition testimony of Patent Owner’s expert in related litigation. Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:40–61; Ex. 1002 ¶ 91; Ex. 1006, 4:61–5:3; Ex. 1032, 84:12–86:17). At this stage, the cited evidence sufficiently supports for purposes of institution Petitioner’s argument that the proposed combination would have included the recited “slew drive.”” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“had at least a four-year degree in mechanical engineering or a closely related field and at least two years of experience designing, developing, or operating heavy machinery, including their components and control systems.” Pet. 8– 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–24). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree, and an advanced degree could substitute for experience.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–25). Petitioner states that “[t]he Board adopted this definition of the level of ordinary skill for the related ’749 patent.” Id. (citing Godberson-Smith Const. Co. v. Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc., IPR2020-01698, Paper 80, 21–24 (PTAB Apr. 12, 2022) (Final Written Decision)). For purposes of its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 13 (quoting Pet. 8–9). Based on the preliminary record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Pet. 8–9; Godberson-Smith, Paper 80 at 21–24 (determining level of ordinary skill after considering the parties’ competing proposals and evidence).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,535,318 - PTAB · Oct 31, 2024 · IPR2024-00858 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 5–7 and 16–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 5–7 and 16–19 are unpatentable over Samartgis and at least claims 5 and 19 over Leoncavallo.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“U.S.C. § 314(a) due to the advanced state of the parallel district court action, and, in doing so, relies heavily on the district court’s scheduled trial date of September 22, 2025. See Prelim. Resp. 51, 54. While the district court’s scheduled trial date may be earlier than the Board’s projected deadline for a final written decision here, CamelBak’s reliance on that date is misplaced. The Office takes the position that a district court’s scheduled trial dates are “unreliable and often change” and that a more reliable indicator is the district court’s “median time-to-trial for civil actions,” which, in this case, would place the district court’s trial date after the projected deadline of any final written decision here. See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022) (“Director’s Interim Procedure”), at 8–9. Thus, CamelBak’s reliance 5 US D586,184 S, issued Feb. 10, 2009 (Ex. 1006, “Miller”). on the district court’s scheduled trial date has no bearing on whether we should discretionarily deny institution. Of greater relevance is Trove’s express stipulation not to pursue the same grounds in the district court action as advanced in the petition or any ground that relies on the prior art references cited in the petition. See Pet. 100. Although not exactly a Sotera stipulation, the Office nonetheless recognizes that such stipulations further mitigate concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between us and the district court. See Director’s Interim Procedure, at 7–8. Thus, given Trove’s stipulation and the fact that the district court’s median time-to-trial is after the projected deadline of our final written decision here, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We disagree that Samartgis is the substantially the same as the corresponding design patent cited during prosecution, mainly because the design patent fails to show the closure retention mechanism that is clearly shown and described in Samartgis and goes to the very heart of Trove’s showing of anticipation and obviousness. Compare Ex. 1004, Figs. 3–5 (showing lug members 15, 16 and ramp sections 23, 25, 27), with Ex. 2001, Figs. 1–8 (omitting any depiction of lug members or ramp sections). Thus, Samartgis clearly was not considered. And, although Leoncavallo and Miller may arguably have been considered during prosecution, “[w]hen instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 42 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). As such, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 325(d). B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Trove proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had: an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products . . . [and that] [m]ore work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–30). CamelBak appears to agree. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (“Patent Owner assumes Petitioner has correctly stated the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not set forth its own definition.”). At this stage, we see no reason to depart from Trove’s proposed definition, as it appears reasonable and consistent with the asserted prior art and the ’252 patent.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached
“At this stage, we do not see the need to resolve the § 112(f) issue in light of Trove’s express and unrebutted showing that the prior art teaches sufficiently analogous structure to that identified in the ’252 patent for performing the disputed functional limitations of the claimed “closure retention mechanism.” See Pet. 35 (asserting that “[Samartgis’s] lug members 15 and 16 also are at least equivalent to the structure identified in the specification (i.e., the two or more spaced-apart tabs on the handle)” because “[l]ike the opposed tabs of the ’252 patent, the lug members 15 and 16 are projections that extend from the inner surface of the handle to engage the closure.”). Indeed, at this stage, CamelBak chooses not to address Trove’s showing in this regard, instead arguing that “the construction of ‘closure retention mechanism’ is irrelevant because [Trove] fails to show lug members 15 and 16 are configured to meet other limitations of claims 5 and 19.” Prelim. Resp. 20 n.7. That said, to the extent either party believes it is necessary for final resolution of patentability, they should explore the § 112(f) issue further during the trial phase.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,905,252 - PTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00809 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Limont, Wright, and Xu combination renders claim 1 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“c) Petitioner Shows a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing Based on the preliminary record, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge that Limont, Wright, and Xu teach, suggest, or would have been understood to disclose the limitations of claim 1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined those references in the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Here, we do not find that Fintiv factors 1–5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial. Additionally, after weighing Fintiv factors 1–6, we determine that, on balance, these factors do not favor exercising our discretion to deny institution. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, there is no need to determine whether the Petition establishes compelling merits. G. Conclusion on Fintiv Factors Based on a holistic analysis of the Fintiv factors taking into consideration “whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” (Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6), we decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to implement a secure environment as taught by Xu on Limont’s mobile device incorporating Wright’s encryption functionality” so as “to provide for the protection of data in mobile devices using techniques such as hardware protections and encryptions” and to address “‘malicious users’ accessing confidential information.” Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 263–267, 379– 286, 431–440; Ex. 1004 ¶ 13; Ex. 1016 ¶ 30). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to modify Wright’s encryption functionality using a secure environment as taught by Xu” because “the teachings of Xu beneficially increase Limont’s and Wright’s protections.” Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 437; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 78, 267; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 25–26). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 165–222, 263–298, 427–440), 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 296–297; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 9, 40, Fig. 1), 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 438–440).” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Based on Patent Owner’s cited support from the Specification and declarant testimony that has not yet been challenged, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “network data service” to mean “a service that provides network data.” Prelim. Resp. 5; Ex. 1001, 1:48–49 (“many access networks such as wireless networks, cable networks and DSL (Digital Subscriber Line)”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 30. The parties should consider further addressing Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation during trial.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,198,042 - Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00752 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–27 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least claim 1 over Coffman and declining § 325(d) denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(iii) Conclusion as to Claim 1 We conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable as having been obvious over Coffman.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“synchronizing” of context information and Coffman’s “updating” of context information. See Prelim. Resp. 1–2, 18, 20–23. However, this overlooks that Coffman describes its “updating” of context information as “the exchange of information to coordinate the conversation involving multiple devices,” such as Coffman’s master device and slave devices. Ex. 1003, 22:32–23:15 (emphasis added), 25:10–14, 26:28–27:20. Based on the present record, we are persuaded by Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that this results in synchronization of context information between the devices, such that (for example) the context stack of Coffman’s master device is updated based on the context stack of Coffman’s slave device(s). See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–71. This is consistent, for example, with the ’652 patent’s description of “[t]he synchronization process” as “attempt[ing] to determine which version of a data element or an agent are the newest or most up-to-date and propagates that element,” including replacing “a portion of the database.” Ex. 1001, 17:25–32. slip op. at 25
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner appears to be relying on an implicit claim construction that the term “synchronize” requires perfect synchronization, not allowing any deviation between the respective context stacks of the synchronized devices. This implicit claim construction is contradicted by the ’652 patent specification, which contemplates that “[t]he synchronization may be performed automatically when any two or more of the computers are connected to these networks,” or “[a]lternatively . . . the synchronization” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“We conclude, per Advanced Bionics, that the Examiner erred in “overlooking specific teachings” of Coffman / Coffman ’574 when allowing the ’652 patent to issue. Advanced Bionics, at 8–9 & n.9; see also id. at 10 (“[I]f the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive[.]”). Here, the Examiner cited Coffman ’574 as a considered reference, but did not cite Coffman ’574 as the basis for any claim rejections. See supra Section IV.B.1. Nor did the Examiner express any reasons for allowance over Coffman ’574. See id. Patent Owner’s argument that the Examiner allowed the ’652 patent claims over Coffman ’574 for the same reasons that the Examiner allowed the claims over the unrelated Mumick reference is not supported by the prosecution history evidence. In particular, the Examiner cited Mumick’s synchronization of navigation histories as being different from the claimed synchronization of context stacks/sets. See Ex. 1012, 170–171, 447. Coffman / Coffman ’574, by contrast, specifically discloses context stacks/sets. See supra Section III.E.2(ii) (comparing Coffman with claim 1 of the ’652 patent). Patent Owner does not cite to anything in the prosecution history to establish the Examiner considered the specific teachings of Coffman / Coffman ’574 cited in the Petition as disclosing the synchronization of context stacks/sets recited in claims 1, 14, and 20 of the ’652 patent. Indeed, accepting Patent Owner’s reasoning would prove too much, as it would mean the Examiner concluded all of the twelve initially-cited references (see Ex. 1012, 175) as well as all of the approximately 650 later-cited references (see id. at 450–477) were distinguished from the allowed claims by failing to disclose or suggest synchronizing context stacks/sets, because the same reasons for allowance over Mumick were provided in both instances (see id. at 170–171, 447). Thus, we conclude Petitioner’s case for obviousness over Coffman is not a mere “disagreement with a specific finding of record by the Office” during prosecution of the ’652 patent. Advanced Bionics, at 10–11.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,849,652 - Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00750 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17–20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 34, and 36 based on obviousness over Coffman, Julia, and Cooper.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of speech- and natural language-interfaces for interacting with and directing computer systems and software, including speech recognition and processing (and more experience could substitute for less formal education, and vice versa). Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 11–15). Because Patent Owner did not file a preliminary response, the record does not yet present an alternative proposed level of ordinary skill in the art or a dispute regarding Petitioner’s proposed skill level. Therefore, based on the preliminary record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “[e]xpress claim construction is unnecessary because the prior art renders the challenged claims obvious under any reasonable construction” but “reserves its right to respond to Patent Owner’s claim construction arguments.” Pet. 17. At this preliminary stage, we determine that express claim interpretation is not necessary to determine whether Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“According to Petitioner, it would have been obvious to combine Coffman’s PVA and conversational system with Julia’s vehicle navigation application. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 66). Petitioner also argues that the proposed combination would have been known prior art elements and techniques combined according to known methods to yield predictable ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Coffman and Julia because Julia provides further details about how a user provides spoken input for a navigation application and because Julia would have improved Coffman. Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 68; Ex. 1009, 7, 18). Also, according to Petitioner, the proposed combination of Coffman’s PVA and conversational system with Cooper’s voice-enabled email application would have been combining known prior art elements and techniques according to known methods to yield predictable results. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 71). Petitioner argues that Cooper discloses another example of receiving a natural language utterance. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 71). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Coffman and Cooper because Cooper provides additional details about how a user interacts with an email application using natural language utterances and Cooper would have improved Coffman. Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 73). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Coffman with both Julia and Cooper because the combinations would have involved applying known technologies and techniques. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 69), 34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 74).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,447,607
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.