- Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Aug 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00331 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–23 based on a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, applying all challenges in the Petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aOther
“V. CONCLUSION Based on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Hence, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all challenges included in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018) (noting that the language of 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) “indicates a binary choice— either institute review or don’t”); PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute as requiring “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Additionally, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 95
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artInstituted
“4. WHETHER PETITIONER ESTABLISHES A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT STONE IS ANALOGOUS ART” slip op. at 38
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,526,886 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00334 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 10–15, 17, 19, and 22–25 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness challenges.
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). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “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). Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence before us, we conclude Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’138 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’138 patent on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are misplaced. It is an oversimplification to say that if the expert testimony is the same as statements in the Petition, then the testimony should be accorded no weight. The issue is not whether the two are the same or nearly identical. Rather, the issue is whether the testimony refers to supporting evidence or contains technical reasoning. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (according “little weight” to declaration testimony that contains a verbatim restatement of a petition’s conclusory assertions without additional supporting evidence or reasoning). This is consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), which states: “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” We do not accord expert testimony little or no weight simply because it is verbatim to what Petitioner states in the Petition. Patent Owner has not even attempted to show that Dr. McDaniel’s testimony is without citation to underlying evidence and lacks technical reasoning. Further, Dr. McDaniel’s testimony regarding motivation to combine the teachings of Kesanupalli and Brown includes numerous other paragraphs, e.g., paragraphs 75–79, and Dr. McDaniel also has testified to the technical content of Kesanupalli, e.g., paragraphs 65–70. All of that testimony should be read together in determining whether Dr. McDaniel’s testimony regarding combining the teachings of Kesanupalli and Brown is wholly conclusory, i.e., without any evidentiary support or technical reasoning. Patent Owner has not shown that it is. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. McDaniel’s testimony should be accorded no weight as to the reasonable expectation of success analysis lacks merit. We decline to accord Dr. McDaniel’s testimony no weight. E.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in [] electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of authentication techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–21). At this preliminary stage and on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except for the qualifier “at least” which would make the stated scope without an upper bound and thus potentially cover the level of skill of an expert. It is supported by the testimony of Dr. McDaniel (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–21) and not disputed by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 10–11). Further, it appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). C.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“Each independent claim recites generally “a processor;” and the ’138 patent states “[a]s used herein, the term ‘processor’ refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores configured to process data, such as computer program instructions.” APPL-1001, 2:21–23. POSITA would understand that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “processor” may include “one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores,” which includes a plurality of separate devices, circuits, and/or processing cores functioning together to provide a processor. APPL-1003, ¶56. Pet. 7. Patent Owner has not proposed a construction for “processor” and states that “it does not address these positions [of Petitioner]” because its Response “does not depend on these definitions.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Based on the description in the specification of the ’138 patent, as cited by Petitioner, we determine, preliminarily, that a “processor,” in the context of the ’138 patent, may include a plurality of separate devices, circuits, and/or processing cores functioning together to provide a processor.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,514,138 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00332 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–6, 10–16, 20, and 21 because Apple showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would have been obvious over Kesanupalli, Challener, and Cheng.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“discretionary denials in AIA post-grant proceedings with parallel district court litigation. See Ex. 1025, Memorandum to Members of the PTAB from Director Vidal, dated June 21, 2022 (“Memorandum”). In the Memorandum, the Director states that “[w]hen a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition, it mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. at 7. Further, when such a stipulation is provided, “the grounds the PTAB resolves will differ from those present in the parallel district court litigation” and “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR.” Id. In this case, Petitioner provides a stipulation that falls within the contours of the Memorandum. Ex. 1029, 1. Petitioner’s stipulation meets the requirements of a stipulation pursuant to Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A), and, therefore, the Director’s Memorandum governs our determination here. For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with the Director’s Memorandum, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) due to the parallel district court litigation.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Because neither the same nor substantially the same art or arguments were made to the Office during prosecution of the ’512 patent or in the 251 IPR, we determine that the first prong of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied. Since the first prong of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied, we need not reach the second prong of the Advanced Bionics framework. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 16
- 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(a). See 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, as well as all supporting evidence, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge of at least one claim of the ’512 patent as unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’512 patent on the ground stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“(PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential), the Board accorded “little weight” to declaration testimony that contains a verbatim restatement of a petition’s arguments without additional supporting evidence or reasoning. In Xerox, the Board held that the critical inquiry is whether a declaration is conclusory and unsupported and whether it discloses underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based. Xerox, Paper 9 at 15 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”)); see also RightQuestion, Paper 17 at 23 (“Petitioner’s declarant makes these same statements verbatim, without more, and with no additional citations to evidence.”). Patent Owner ignores Dr. McDaniel’s testimony summarizing the relevant disclosures from Kesanupalli, Challener, and Cheng. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–73. Patent Owner also ignores Dr. McDaniel’s testimony of the specific basis for his opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kesanupalli and Challener with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74–80. This testimony contains specific detailed citations to the references in support of Dr. McDaniel’s opinions. We, thus, find that Dr. McDaniel’s testimony, taken as a whole, in support of the Petition is supported sufficiently at this stage of the proceeding. Consequently, we do not give his testimony little to no weight because portions of it are repeated in the Petition.” slip op. at 44
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,929,512 - PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00537 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over Forutanpour.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“deny institution. Fintiv seeks to “minimize potential conflict between the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and district court proceedings.” Fintiv Memo, 1; see also Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5 (introducing factors to weigh “[w]hen the patent owner raises an argument for discretionary denial . . . due to an earlier trial date”) (emphasis added). Because the district court has not set a trial date, and the trial court statistics indicate any trial is likely to occur months after a Final Written Decision in this proceeding, we see little potential for conflicting Board and district court decisions.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art to be reasonable and commensurate with the problems and solutions disclosed in the prior art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description as our own. slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under this standard, a claim is construed “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Only claim terms which are 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., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner construes the claims to have their “plain and ordinary meaning” and contends “that no terms invoke means-plus-function analysis.” Pet. 17–18. Patent Owner does not contend that any terms require construction. Prelim. Resp. 7. At this stage of the proceeding, because the parties do not dispute the meaning of any claim terms and none appear to require construction, we offer no express constructions for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“of the grandparent application is that they disclose a WTRU having a communication peripheral that can (a) operate in Bluetooth or WiFi mode, (b) use Bluetooth to discover nearby devices and services, (c) transfer data to nearby devices, and (d) use discovered environmental information to determine which components are needed to effect data transfer. But they do not expressly disclose using Bluetooth to discover a nearby WTRU and WiFi to transfer data to that WTRU.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,737,933 - PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00538 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds because Microsoft showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)InstitutedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–6. As discussed above, factor 1 is neutral and factors 2–4 and 6 weigh against discretionary denial, while factor 5 weighs marginally in favor of discretionary denial. Because our analysis is fact-driven, no single factor determines whether we exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In the circumstances of this case, considering each Fintiv factor as part of a holistic analysis, we are persuaded that the efficiency and integrity of the system would be best served by granting the Petition to institute an inter partes review. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 314(a).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Thus, on this record, we find that Petitioner is reasonably likely to establish that claim 1 is unpatentable in light of Forutanpour. While this alone is sufficient for institution purposes, we also find that Petitioner is reasonably likely to show that Forutanpour anticipates independent claim 23, which is commensurate in scope with claim 1.” slip op. at 24
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“actually or inherently disclose the claim element.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306–07 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The passages that Patent Owner cites from the great-grandparent application describe a WTRU that may be capable of both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi communications. Ex. 1282 ¶ 24 (’948 application). They describe detecting another WTRU using Bluetooth. Id. ¶ 34. They also describe transferring data to that target WTRU. Id. ¶¶ 32, 39, 42. None of the passages cited, however, describe using Bluetooth for detection and then switching to Wi-Fi for data transfer within the same transaction. This element of claim 1 is neither expressly nor inherently disclosed in the great-grandparent application.9 It therefore does not have written description support in the ancestor application and cannot benefit from its effective filing date.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableInstituted
“Finally, claim 1 requires the WTRU to transfer, using a Wi-Fi communication, the selected media. Ex. 1201, 10:64–65. Forutanpour discloses that the user’s device may transfer the selected file to the intended recipient “using a wireless technology different from the wireless technology used to establish the wireless link.” Ex. 1204 ¶¶ 4–5. That wireless technology may be WiFi. Id. ¶¶ 81–84 (“messages may similarly be transmitted via another type of wireless communication network, such as a WiFi . . . network”); see also id. at claim 2 (“establishing the wireless link is accomplished using a wireless technology selected from Bluetooth®, ZigBee®, Near Field Communication (NFC), wide-area-wireless IEEE 802.11 (WiFi), infrared (IrDA), and ultrasound”), claim 3 (“The method of claim 2, wherein: . . . transmitting the file sharing message to the targeted computing device is accomplished using a wireless technology different from the wireless technology used to establish the wireless link.”). Thus, on this record, we find that Petitioner is reasonably likely to establish that claim 1 is unpatentable in light of Forutanpour. While this alone is sufficient for institution purposes, we also find that Petitioner is reasonably likely to show that Forutanpour anticipates independent claim 23, which is commensurate in scope with claim 1.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,173,054 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationInstitutedPTAB · May 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00105 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–13 and 16 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Fells.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“According to our precedent, “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 [Becton, Dickinson] factors (e) and (f).” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10; see also Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-01421, Paper 14 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2023) (vacating a Board decision denying institution where the examiner considered references but never provided any discussion, analysis, or other findings, and the petition provided a sufficient argument on the merits, which the examiner misapprehended or overlooked). Here, in evaluating Becton, Dickinson factor (c), we determine that the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to Fells and Cook is not well developed and neither reference was the basis for a rejection. We also determine, for reasons we discuss more fully below, that InductEV has shown that the Examiner materially erred by overlooking at least the teachings of Fell as applied to claim 1 (Becton, Dickinson factor (e)), and that the Petition presents additional evidence and facts, including testimony by Dr. Allen, that warrant reconsideration of Fells (Becton, Dickinson factor (f)). See infra Section IV.C. Thus, we decline to deny institution discretionarily under § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“9. Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that InductEV has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Fells discloses or teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features described in Fells in the manner recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that InductEV is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Fells.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“9. Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that InductEV has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Fells discloses or teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features described in Fells in the manner recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that InductEV is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Fells.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–63); Prelim. Resp. 5–6. We agree that, for this decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We discuss the claim terms below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,027,184 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationInstitutedPTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00140 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4–10, 12–16, 18, and 19 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we may institute an inter partes review 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(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Applying that standard, we institute an inter partes review of all the challenged claims of the ’654 patent for the reasons explained below. This is a preliminary decision, and we will base our final written decision on the full trial record.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“First, although InductEV disagrees that the word antenna would exclude coils found within a transformer-like structure, InductEV does not appear to dispute WiTricity’s proposed IEEE definition of antenna as “a device that radiates and/or receives radio waves.” See Prelim. Reply 2–3. We preliminary adopt that construction. But we agree with InductEV that nothing in this construction would exclude a coil found within a transformerlike structure, so long as it either transmits or receives radio waves. We also note that, although WiTricity relies on the generation of near-field flux lines into free space as a way to distinguish an antenna from a transformer, WiTricity does not point to any testimonial or other evidence that a transformer coil does not generate near-field flux lines into free space. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 8–16; Ex. 2001, 20–37. Second, we agree with InductEV that the preliminary evidence does not suggest (and WiTricity does not explicitly argue) that the terms transmitting antenna or receiving antenna depart from the ordinary and customary meanings of those terms. Pet. 2. The ’654 patent does refer to a “coupling-mode region” consisting of the area around antennas 114 and 118 of Figure 1 in which “near-field coupling may occur.” Ex. 1001, 2:38–40; see supra Section II.A. But this is the region in which “efficient energy transfer occurs by coupling a large portion of the energy in the near-field of the transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna rather than propagating most of the energy in an electromagnetic wave to the far field”—not a defining characteristic of either the transmitting or receiving antenna. See Ex. 1001, 2:31–38. Thus, for this decision, we preliminarily adopt InductEV’s proposed construction of transmitting antenna as “an antenna that transmits energy” and the proposed construction of receiving antenna as “an antenna that receives energy.” Prelim. Reply 1. This appears to be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms and their usage in the ’654 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:26–40. As this is a preliminary construction solely for this decision, the parties may continue to offer evidence and arguments as to these or other claim terms at trial. We do not need to construe any of the other terms explicitly for this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Alternatively, if WiTricity is correct that alignment based on the degree of coupling is not explicitly applicable to the “parked” embodiment, the preliminary evidence suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute such alignment for alignment based on the output of the sensors that Ross discloses, such as optical sensors, and that this would have predictably led to aligning the two coils regardless of whether the vehicle is parked temporarily on a roadway or parked in a loading/unloading zone. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 246–248 (opining that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that one may obtain the “optimum lateral position” of the vehicle coil by sensing the degree of coupling “[i]nstead of” using sensors (quoting Ex. 1007, 13:21))); KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”); Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[I]f there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.” (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021))). We also find persuasive, on the present record, InductEV’s argument that claim 13 does not require control based on the degree of inductive coupling while the receiving antenna is being guided into the recited “first alignment position.” See Prelim. Reply 5. Whereas limitation 13[b] requires such control after the receiving antenna is already in the “first alignment position” (e.g., during fine alignment while Ross’s vehicle is parked in the loading/unloading zone), there is no such requirement in limitation 13[a] while the receiving antenna is being moved to the “first alignment position” (e.g., while Ross’s vehicle leaves the electrified roadway and parks in the loading/unloading zone).” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,466,654 - PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00306 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Microsoft would show at least one claim obvious over Ahya and McKillop.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision. Here, no trial date has been set in the related district court proceeding.1 Pet. 2–3; Prelim. Resp. 13. However, “when considering the proximity of the district court’s trial date to the date when the PTAB final written decision will be due, the PTAB will consider the median time from filing to disposition of the civil trial for the district in which the parallel litigation resides.” Ex. 2002, 3 (Vidal Memo). The most recent statistics show a median time-to-trial for completed civil trials in the Eastern District of North Carolina of 31.2 months. See Reply 1; Ex. 1082, 21 (U.S. district courts judicial caseload profile). Thus, a projected trial date for the related district court proceeding, which was filed on September 1, 2023, would be in mid-April of 2026. See Pet. xii (providing filing date for district court litigation). This would be about ten months after the projected statutory deadline for a final written decision in this proceeding. Accordingly, this factor weighs heavily against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner and Patent Owner. We are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates, for purposes of this institution decision, that it is reasonably likely that it will be able to show that the combination of Ahya and McKillop, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, teaches each element of claim 1. We also find, at this stage of the proceeding, that Petitioner has sufficiently articulated some reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to combine Ahya and McKillop. Accordingly, we conclude that based on the current record, Petitioner’s contentions, detailed above and supported by the Rysavy Declaration, are sufficient to show a reasonable likelihood of success for Petitioner’s challenge to claim 1. Petitioner’s analysis of the remaining challenged independent claim, claim 23, refers back to its analysis of claim 1 and cites evidence demonstrating that the combination of Ahya and McKillop teaches a WTRU that performs each of the recited steps of claim 1. Pet. 47. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that claim 23 is also unpatentable over Ahya and McKillop. f. Conclusions Regarding Obviousness of the Challenged Dependent Claims We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions regarding the unpatentability of dependent claims 3–10, 12, 14–15, 21, 25–32, 34, 36–37, 43, 46–47, and 49–50. Pet. 36–47. Patent Owner does not challenge these contentions at this stage in the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 7–57. We are persuaded, based on the evidence and argument presented, that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 3–10, 12, 14–15, 21, 25–32, 34, 36–37, 43, 46–47, and 49–50 are unpatentable over the combination of Ahya and McKillop.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“InterDigital states that for the purposes of its Preliminary Response, it does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, but “reserves the right to argue for a different definition should the Board institute trial in this proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art, which we view as consistent with the ’054 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply that definition in our analysis below.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Microsoft represents that it applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms and that no terms in the challenged claims require a means- plus-function analysis. Pet. 14. For the purposes of its Preliminary Response, InterDigital adopts Microsoft’s position that no constructions are required. Prelim. Resp. 7. We determine that no express constructions are needed for us to render our Decision on Institution. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,173,054 - PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00305 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Microsoft would show at least one claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“We find this factor weighs heavily against exercising discretion to deny institution for the reasons stated by Petitioner. Fintiv seeks “[t]o minimize potential conflict between the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and district court proceedings.” Fintiv Memo, 1; see also Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5 (introducing factors to weigh “[w]hen the patent owner raises an argument for discretionary denial . . . due to an earlier trial date”) (emphasis added). Because the district court has not set a trial date, and the trial court statistics indicate a trial is likely to occur months after a Final Written Decision in this proceeding, any potential conflict between Board and district court decisions is de minimus.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art to be reasonable and commensurate with the problems and solutions disclosed in the prior art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description as our own. slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, a claim is construed “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Only claim terms which are 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., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“3. Reasons to combine Ahya and McKillop Petitioner contends a person skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Ahya and McKillop because both references disclose “Bluetooth and Wi-Fi enabled wireless devices that include touchscreens for receiving user inputs and Bluetooth discovery for detecting other nearby devices” and because “McKillop provides express motivation for switching from Bluetooth to Wi-Fi to transfer files: speed and range.” Pet. 19–20. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s reasoning to combine the teachings of these references. See Prelim. Resp. 7–57. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions, and find Petitioner articulates sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Ahya and McKillop in the manner claimed.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,737,933 - PTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00050 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all four obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “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). Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we conclude Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’165 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’165 patent on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“power transmission device” The Specification of the ’165 patent describes: Whether intentional or accidental, the act of directly manually opening or closing the lid (e.g., not opened and/or closed by the motor or another power transmission device, such as a foot pedal) may, for example, wear down, strip or lead to the failure of the components and parts of the power operated trash receptacle, such as the motor or gears. For instance, when the lid is manually operated, certain of the gears in connection with the lid are encouraged to move (e.g., rotate and/or translate). However, because the motor may be relatively difficult to rotate when not being operated, the motor may inhibit one or more of the gears from moving. Thus, when the lid is manually operated, a stress can result between the gears that the lid is urging to move and the gears that the motor is inhibiting from moving. Such a stress can result in damage to the gears, motor, lid, or other components of the receptacle. Ex. 1001, 2:3–19 (emphasis added). The language above-emphasized in italics indicates that a foot pedal with its associated linkages that one uses to open and/or close the lid only by human power is within the scope of a “power transmission device.” Also, claim 15 of the ’165 patent recites: “The trash can assembly of claim 1, wherein the power transmission device comprises a foot pedal.” Ex. 1001, 18:22–23. This language indicates that a foot pedal with its associated linkages are within the scope of “power transmission device.” For the foregoing reasons, we understand the scope of “power transmission device” in the context of the Specification of the ’165 patent is sufficiently broad to encompass a foot pedal with its associated mechanical linkages for transmitting human power. D. slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“have recognized that Miller’s bezel serves the same function as the trim in Yang ’865, i.e., to secure the trash bag, and thus Miller’s teaching of how to keep Miller’s bezel raised is applicable to the trim member in Yang ’865. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 110; Ex. 1007 ¶ 45). Petitioner then explains in detail what modifications would have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art to the trash can assembly of Yang ’865 to incorporate the applicable teachings from Miller. Pet. 30–32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103–104, 109–116). Petitioner further explains: A POSITA would have made this modification so that the trim “can be locked in a raised, angular position so that the user may use both hands to fit the inner liner.” Ex. 1006 at 1:21–53 (describing problem); 1:61–2:40, 5:20–28, 6:20–22 (describing solution). A POSITA would have found this benefit motivating and applicable because Yang ’865 requires the user to “lift the trim” with one hand while replacing the trash bag with the other hand. Ex. 1007 at [0045]; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103–04. Pet. 33. Petitioner additionally explains: The POSITA would have expected this modification to work because both Miller’s bezel and Yang ’865’s trim member operate similarly: they are similarly shaped members that pivot up and down using a hinge at one end near the upper backside of a trash can. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110–12; Ex. Miller at 5:41–57; Ex. 1007 at [0035], [0038]–[0040]. Both Miller’s bezel and Yang ‘865’s trim member are used along with a pivoting lid. Ex. Miller at 3:41–45, 4:46–52; Ex. 1007 at [0035], [0037]. Given the similar setups, a POSITA would expect the mechanics that cause Miller’s bevel to lock in the open position to similarly work for the similarly shaped member of Yang ’865 that similarly pivots about a hinge at the upper backside of a trash can. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110–12. Moreover, a POSITA would have had an expectation of success because a POSITA would have successfully simulated the model to verify that it works, as Prof. Visser did. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–16. Id. at 32–33. Petitioner’s assertions are supported by the cited evidence and not disputed by Patent Owner. We are sufficiently persuaded that the combined teachings of Yang ’865 and Miller disclose limitation [1.8].” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,683,165
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.