- Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00232 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–6 and 8–17 based on reasonable likelihood that Google would prevail on the asserted obviousness grounds over Ludtke, alone or with Kon.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of the ’730 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“third-party trusted authority” to exclude any active participant in a transaction. This would exclude the trusted key authority of the preferred embodiments of the ’730 patent, which actively participates in a transaction, for example by receiving a request for authentication with a code, determining whether the code is valid, authenticating the code, and transmitting an access code to the requester, which allows a user access to an application. Ex. 1001, 7:10–22, Fig. 7. Although the trusted key authority in this example is not a principal party to the transaction (here, those parties are the user and the application), it is an active participant in facilitating the transaction. In another preferred embodiment of the ’730 patent, trusted key authority 320 plays an active role in transactions, e.g., verifying to a grocery store that a biometric key presented by a customer is legitimate, thereby allowing the transaction to proceed. Id. at 5:42–56, Figs. 3–4. However, despite the trusted key authority’s active participation, the parties to such a transaction are the customer and the grocery store, not trusted key authority 320. 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. See id. at 6:32–64, Fig. 5 (describing activities of an agent). slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“2. Remaining claim terms 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 12
- 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 at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering or an equivalent engineering discipline, and at least three years of experience in the field of encryption and security, or the equivalent,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–32, 54–56). 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§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,352,730 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00233 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 10, 12–19, and 22–27 based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Ludtke or Ludtke and Kon.
RulingsInstitution decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The Samsung DDI does not provide a basis for further limiting a “third-party trusted authority,” or “third party that operates a trusted authority,” to exclude any active participant in a transaction. This would exclude the trusted key authority of the preferred embodiments of the ’954 patent, which actively participates in a transaction, for example by receiving a request for authentication with a code, determining whether the code is valid, authenticating the code, and transmitting an access code to the requester, which allows a user access to an application. Ex. 1001, 8:5–17, Fig. 7. Although the trusted key authority in this example is not a principal party to the transaction (here, those parties are the user and the application), it is an active participant in facilitating the transaction. In another preferred embodiment of the ’954 patent, trusted key authority 320 plays an active role in transactions, e.g., verifying to a grocery store that a biometric key presented by a customer is legitimate, thereby allowing the transaction to proceed. Id. at 6:37–51, Figs. 3–4. However, despite the trusted key authority’s active participation, the parties to such a transaction are the customer and the grocery store, not trusted key authority 320. The “witness” role mentioned in the Specification (Ex. 1001, 7:30–33) refers to an agent’s relationship to the principal parties to the transaction, not to the level of activity the agent engages in. See id. at 7:27–59, Fig. 5 (describing activities of an agent). Patent Owner’s proposed clarifications, or modifications, to the Samsung DDI’s construction of “third-party trusted authority,” which would exclude these embodiments, are presumptively incorrect. See Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The Federal Circuit “recognize[s] that ‘[a] claim construction exclud[ing] a preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever correct.’” (quoting Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., 34 F.4th 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (second and third alterations in original)). Indeed, Patent Owner’s view would transform any entity that is accessed for any reason in a transaction into a party to that transaction, thus excluding it from the scope of a “third party that operates a trusted authority.” Patent Owner, however, has advanced no persuasive support for such a narrow reading of the claims. Accordingly, we adopt the Samsung DDI’s construction without Patent Owner’s modifications. On the current record, a “third party that operates a trusted authority” is “a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“2. Remaining claim terms 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 12
- 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 at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering or an equivalent engineering discipline, and at least three years of experience in the field of encryption and security, or the equivalent,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–32, 53–55). 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
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that Kon describes registering and storing a user’s age in association with a user device’s device ID. Pet. 63–67 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 194, 234, 241, 265–266, Figs. 5, 9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 184–185). Petitioner argues that “[t]he user’s age, like the biometric information, provides another data point for identifying the user,” and would have been especially useful when a transaction has an age minimum, such as purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. Id. at 68 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 186–187). Accordingly, Petitioner argues, a skilled artisan would have registered a user’s age, as taught by Kon, with Ludtke’s device ID to facilitate age-prohibitive transactions. Id. Petitioner makes the same arguments for claims 10 and 13. Pet. 69 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 188). Patent Owner does not yet provide separate arguments for claims 3, 14, and 17. On the current record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Kon teaches the additional limitations of claims 3, 14, and 17, and that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, for combining Ludtke and Kon.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,886,954 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00234 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and 9–18 based on the asserted obviousness grounds over Ludtke and Ludtke with Kon.
RulingsInstitution decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The Samsung DDI does not provide a basis for further limiting a “third-party trusted authority” to exclude any active participant in a transaction. This would exclude the trusted key authority of the preferred embodiments of the ’730 patent, which actively participates in a transaction, for example by receiving a request for authentication with a code, determining whether the code is valid, authenticating the code, and transmitting an access code to the requester, which allows a user access to an application. Ex. 1001, 8:8–20, Fig. 7. Although the trusted key authority in this example is not a principal party to the transaction (here, the parties are the user and the application), it is an active participant in facilitating the transaction. In another preferred embodiment of the ’905 Patent, trusted key authority 320 plays an active role in transactions, e.g., verifying to a grocery store that a biometric key presented by a customer is legitimate, thereby allowing the transaction to proceed. Id. at 6:39–53, Figs. 3–4. However, despite trusted key authority’s active participation, the parties to such a transaction are the customer and the grocery store, not trusted key authority 320. The “witness” role mentioned in the Specification (Ex. 1001, 7:33–36) refers to an agent’s relationship to the principal parties to the transaction, not to level of activity the agent engages in. See id. at 7:30–642, Fig. 5 (describing activities of an agent). Patent Owner’s proposed clarifications, or modifications, to the Samsung DDI’s construction of “third-party trusted authority,” which would exclude these embodiments, is presumptively incorrect. See Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“The Federal Circuit “recognize[s] that ‘[a] claim construction exclud[ing] a preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever correct.’” (quoting Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., 34 F.4th 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (second and third alterations in original)). Indeed, Patent Owner’s view would transform any entity that is accessed for any reason in a transaction into a party to that transaction, thus excluding it from the scope of a “third-party trusted authority.” Patent Owner, however, has advanced no persuasive support for such a narrow reading of the claims. Accordingly, we adopt the Samsung DDI’s construction without Patent Owner’s modifications. On the current record, a “third-party trusted authority” is “a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“2. Remaining claim terms 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
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering or an equivalent engineering discipline, and at least three years of experience in the field of encryption and security, or the equivalent,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–32, 54–56). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of skill or propose an alternative. See Prelim. Resp. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’905 Patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’905 Patent and cited prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that Kon describes registering and storing a user’s age in association with a user device’s device ID. Pet. 43–46 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 194, 234, 241, 264–265, Figs. 5, 9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–70). Petitioner argues that “[t]he user’s age, like the biometric information, provides another data point for identifying the user,” and would have been especially useful when a transaction has an age minimum, such as purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 152–153). Accordingly, Petitioner argues, a skilled artisan would have registered a user’s age, as taught by Kon, with Ludtke’s device ID to facilitate age-prohibitive transactions. Id. Petitioner makes the same arguments for claim 11. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 155). Patent Owner does not yet provide separate arguments for claims 2 and 11. See Prelim. Resp. On the current record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Kon teaches the additional limitations of claims 2 and 11, and that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, for combining Ludtke and Kon.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,298,905 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00407 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–20 of the ’289 patent over four § 103 grounds: Giobbi ’157/Giobbi ’139; with Dua; Broadcom; and Broadcom with Giobbi ’157.
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
- BurdenOther
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. In particular Patent Owner is relying on a claim construction of “enabling” requiring “providing an access key in exchange for information held locally in the PDK’s service blocks” (Prelim. Resp. 32–35) that is not required by our construction discussed above. As discussed above, we determine that the term “enabl[ing] an application, a function or a service” is not limited to “receiv[ing] information from a PDK in exchange for an access key.” Giobbi ’157 teaches, for example, a RDC requesting profile data stored within the external PDK for authentication, wherein, if the profile data received from the external PDK is valid, the RDC completes the transaction, which includes enabling access to secure physical or digital assets. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 61, 63, Fig. 4. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Giobbi ’157’s “transaction” wherein its completion “enabl[es] access to secure physical or digital assets,” i.e., “enables one or more of an application, a function, and service.” See Pet. 35. a sufficient showing that the combination of Giobbi ’157 in view of Giobbi ’139 and Dua teaches “one or more of (a) the integrated, wireless communication interface . . . and (b) the local, secured information stored by the integrated, secure memory enables one or more of an application, a function, and a service,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 33
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“secured information,” as claimed, suggests an integrated, secure memory for storing information locally, wherein the information is secured. See Pet. 28– 29, 67–68; Prelim. Resp. 27−29. 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],” and not a definition. See Ex. 1001, 3:43–50. The language Patent Owner points to in the Specification proves 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 secure information,” nothing in the Specification limits “local, secure 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 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” as claimed 6 We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “the permissive language ‘in this example’ does not expand the definition ‘local secure information’” because “it applies to the sensors.” Prelim. Resp. 28. The Specification is clear that, in this example, “the” same service access keys 118 contained by the sensor allow the sensor to unlock information “used as local secured information.” See Ex. 1001, 3:43–50. 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 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“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 is necessary to resolve the parties’ issues in controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. 2. “receiver-decoder circuit (RDC)” Patent Owner proposes construing “receiver-decoder circuit” appearing in claims 1, 3, 7, 14, and 16 as “a component or collection of components, capable of wirelessly receiving data in an encrypted format and decoding the encrypted data for processing” as “construed” by the district court in the Samsung case. Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 2001, 4; Ex. 2004, 4). Petitioner contends that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner adopts this construction [adopted in the district court].” Pet. 5. We determine no explicit construction of “receiver-decoder circuit” is necessary to resolve the parties’ issues in controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,289 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00405 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds.
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 › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided 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– 29, 67–68; Prelim. Resp. 22−23. Further, nothing in the Specification or the 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. 22. 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. 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.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:50–57) (emphasis added). That is, although the referenced portion of the Specification indicates that, in an example, information stored in a corresponding service block can be used as “local secure information,” nothing in the Specification limits “local, secure 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 contends.6 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” as claimed 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 › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“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. 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.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:50–57) (emphasis added). That is, although the referenced portion of the Specification indicates that, in an example, information stored in a corresponding service block can be used as “local secure information,” nothing in the Specification limits “local, secure 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 contends.6 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” as claimed 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
- 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. 4–5. 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. That is, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same things as construing a claim term. Thus, the district court’s determination that “hybrid device” is not indefinite did not construe that term, much less provide a construction of “enabled” recited in the claim. Accordingly, although 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” limited to “exchanging an access key for information held within a service block of a PDK,” as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 19.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,073,960 - PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00200 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the Hays obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We use the following two-part framework in determining whether to exercise our discretion under § 325(d): (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.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “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 explained below, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had an undergraduate degree in game design or development, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience working with computer gaming systems or software application development.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–69). Petitioner also contends that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education or vice versa.” Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–69). Patent Owner does not comment on the level of ordinary skill in the Preliminary Response. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’056 patent and the asserted prior art, except that we change qualifier “at least” to “about” to avoid including experience levels that exceed the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction Neither party proposes any claim terms for construction. On this record, we determine that no terms need express construction to determine whether we should institute. 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” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,117,056 - PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00171 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“proceeding if the challenge to the patent is based on matters previously presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) states, in pertinent part, “[i]n determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We use the following two-part framework in determining whether to exercise our discretion under § 325(d): (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” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the reasons discussed above and based on Petitioner’s contentions and evidence, summarized above, we are persuaded, on this record, that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over the teachings of Hays.7” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Patent Owner argues that “Hays is only a ‘printed publication’ under § 311(b) as of the date it became available to the public—i.e., its publication date, which notably, is after the June 26, 2007 priority date of the ’958 Patent,” and, therefore, that Hays is “ineligible to be prior art in an IPR.” Prelim. Resp. 41–44. We disagree with Patent Owner’s statutory interpretation. Hays is a printed publication, having been published on May 1, 2008, as Patent Owner acknowledges. See Ex. 1005, code (43); see also Prelim. Resp. 41 (acknowledging publication date). On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Hays is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), having been filed “by another . . . in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent.” See Pet. 8. Thus, Petitioner asserts a permissible ground of unpatentability by arguing that claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)), specifically based on Hays, which is prior art and a printed publication.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction Neither party proposes any claim terms for construction. On this record, we determine that no terms need express construction to determine whether we should institute. 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))). Nevertheless, we note two issues of claim interpretation for the parties to consider. First, the parties may wish to address the interpretation of the phrase “pre-selected in-game advertising” during the trial for the reasons discussed below in §§ II.E.2 and II.F.1. Second, the parties may wish to address the interpretation of the subject matter of dependent claims 5 and 12 reciting “wherein the message is pre-selected by the server based on a model type associated with the mobile communication device, a service subscription associated with the mobile communication device, or a service provider for the service subscription associated with the mobile communication device.” In particular, the parties may wish to address what it means to be “pre-selected” in this context.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,617,958 - PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00209 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that PLR would prevail on at least one claim.
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 [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] 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). “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) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“focuses on a high-level comparison of the references. See Prelim. Resp. 14– 19. Such high-levels of similarity are to be expected as all of the references involve advertising in computer game programs. But such high-level similarity is not sufficient. Instead, Patent Owner must demonstrate that the references relied on in the Petition are substantially the same in all material respects to the prior art the Examiner actually relied on. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01445, Paper 15 at 16 (PTAB March 2, 2022) (Institution Decision) (“The issue is not just whether the same elements can be found in each of the references, but whether the elements function the same way. That is, even though Leong and Bates have the same elements, that does not mean that the elements interact with each other the same way or perform the same functions as recited in the claims.”); see also Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 15 (holding that prior art is substantially the same if “Petitioner relies on [the new art] in substantially the same manner as the Examiner cited [the previous art] during prosecution such that [the new art] discloses substantially the same information as [the previous art] in relevant part.”).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s statutory interpretation. Ho is a printed publication, having been published in January 2008, as Patent Owner acknowledges. See Ex. 1004, code (43) (publication date of January 17, 2008); see also Prelim. Resp. 45 (acknowledging publication date). On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that Ho is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), having been filed “by another . . . in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent.”11 See Pet. 7 (“For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner uses a June 26, 2007 priority date” for the ’662 patent); see also Ex. 1004, code (22) (filing date of July 12, 2006). Thus, Petitioner asserts a permissible ground of unpatentability” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“claim 115 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine the relevant teachings of Ho and Aoki. See Pet. 17–26, 30. With the exception of “hot spot” and “hot spot information,” which we discussed above in Section II.G.3(a), at the present time Patent Owner does not dispute that Ho teaches those limitations. See Prelim. Resp. 26–35. After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and information regarding the limitations identified above, including the Zagal Declaration, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that Ho teaches limitations 1(pre), 1(a), (1)(b)(1), 1(d), and 1(e) and that a person having” slip op. at 39
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,427,662 - PTAB · Apr 30, 2024 · IPR2024-00132 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–9 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that PLR would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“IV. CONCLUSION Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim of the ’202 patent. Our factual findings, conclusions of law, and determinations at this stage of the proceeding are preliminary, and based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final decision as to the patentability of claims for which inter partes review is instituted. Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed during trial. V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–9 of the ’202 patent on all of the grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 34
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The prior Board decision observed that Willis discloses sending advertising content based on physical geographic location but does not teach “checking what updated video-game content to send based on one of the factors including a type of the mobile 3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s reply arguments are improper new arguments, beyond the scope of the Petition, and should not be considered. Prelim. Sur-reply 1, 3. We disagree, as Petitioner’s reply arguments are responsive to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner preliminary response . . . .”). Furthermore, we expressly authorized Petitioner to file a reply addressing Patent Owner’s Section 325(d) arguments. communication device, a telecom service associated with the mobile communication device, and a service provider of the telecom service.” Ex. 1002, 41–42. As explained in detail below, Petitioner shows persuasively, at least on the current record, that both Hays and Levkovitz teach the limitation the prior Board decision found missing from Willis. Patent Owner does not contend that Willis includes disclosure similar to the disclosure Petitioner cites to in Hays or Levkovitz for this limitation. Accordingly, we conclude that the same or substantially the same art and arguments were not previously presented to the Office, and, accordingly, the first part of Advanced Bionics is not satisfied. We need not reach the second part. We are not persuaded that we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under Section 325(d).” slip op. at 14
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s reply arguments are improper new arguments, beyond the scope of the Petition, and should not be considered. Prelim. Sur-reply 1, 3. We disagree, as Petitioner’s reply arguments are responsive to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner preliminary response . . . .”). Furthermore, we expressly authorized Petitioner to file a reply addressing Patent Owner’s Section 325(d) arguments. communication device, a telecom service associated with the mobile communication device, and a service provider of the telecom service.” Ex. 1002, 41–42. As explained in detail below, Petitioner shows persuasively, at least on the current record, that both Hays and Levkovitz teach the limitation the prior Board decision found missing from Willis. Patent Owner does not contend that Willis includes disclosure similar to the disclosure Petitioner cites to in Hays or Levkovitz for this limitation. Accordingly, we conclude that the same or substantially the same art and arguments were not previously presented to the Office, and, accordingly, the first part of Advanced Bionics is not satisfied. We need not reach the second part. We are not persuaded that we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under Section 325(d).” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“1 Patent Owner contends that Dr. Zagal’s Declaration “simply parrots the Petition” and, thus, should not be entitled to any weight. Prelim. Resp. 28– 33. The testimony quoted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 30–32) includes citations to the prior art to support the opinions set forth and, thus, “disclose[s] the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based” (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95, 103, 118, 165–166 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25, 51; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 5, 6, 123, 127). We decline, at this stage of the proceeding, to discount Dr. Zagal’s testimony in its entirety and will give that testimony the appropriate weight on the points for which it is offered.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,731,202 - PTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 over all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1, 11, and 16 under the Downs/EDACS and Kim grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“A. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and deny the Petition in view of the related lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”); Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)). However, Petitioner has since filed a Sotera stipulation, so named based on Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A). See Ex. 1035. Thus, pursuant to the Interim Procedure, we will not discretionarily deny the Petition based on the related lawsuit. See Interim Procedure at 3 (“Consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.”).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In assessing whether to exercise the Board’s authority to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board considers a two-part analysis. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, No. IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–9 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). First, in Part One, the Board considers whether “the same or substantially the same” art or arguments were previously presented to the Office. Id. at 8. If so, in Part Two, the Board then considers whether the petition demonstrates that the Office “erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. In applying the two-part framework, the Board considers several nonexclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, No. IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“status of a channel,” “having or collecting information on ongoing communications,” and “providing call access to entities” does not constitute “monitoring media streams,” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 29). Patent Owner does not, however, propose a construction for “monitoring media streams,” let alone one that might elucidate the distinction Patent Owner is advancing. Nor is such a distinction apparent based on the claim language. For example, the plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to encompass, among other things, Down’s disclosure that “[t]he dispatcher console is informed of the individual transmitters and channels that are being used and of the status of other transmitters and receivers in the system.” Ex. 1004, 2:20–22; see also id. at 3:17–26 (explaining that the display provides caller, volume, and, if applicable, emergency status of each individual communication). The plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to also encompass EDACS’s disclosure that its “system receives [an emergency] request and assigns the emergency call to a free channel.” Ex. 1005, 25.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“status of a channel,” “having or collecting information on ongoing communications,” and “providing call access to entities” does not constitute “monitoring media streams,” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 29). Patent Owner does not, however, propose a construction for “monitoring media streams,” let alone one that might elucidate the distinction Patent Owner is advancing. Nor is such a distinction apparent based on the claim language. For example, the plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to encompass, among other things, Down’s disclosure that “[t]he dispatcher console is informed of the individual transmitters and channels that are being used and of the status of other transmitters and receivers in the system.” Ex. 1004, 2:20–22; see also id. at 3:17–26 (explaining that the display provides caller, volume, and, if applicable, emergency status of each individual communication). The plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to also encompass EDACS’s disclosure that its “system receives [an emergency] request and assigns the emergency call to a free channel.” Ex. 1005, 25.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,831,664
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.