- PTAB · May 2, 2025 · IPR2024-01450 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Dziong and Sathyanath.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’088 patent (January 2006), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately four years of experience working in the field of network communications, including experience with [Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)] tunnels and bandwidth allocation,” where “[a]dditional work experience can substitute for specific educational background, and vice versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable and familiar with the network communications technologies discussed in [the Specification of the ’088 patent], including bandwidth reservations, quality of service techniques, routing protocols (including Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)), tunneling protocols (including [MPLS]), resource reservations (including Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)), traffic engineering (including relevant extensions to OSPF, IS-IS, and RSVP), and ring networking standards (e.g., Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and resilient packet ring (RPR) defined by IEEE 802.17). Id. Patent Owner states that “Petitioner’s definition . . . is acceptable for” purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8 n.3. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’088 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’088 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner argues that “no claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 12–13. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Preliminary Response. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“Patent Owner, however, does not explain sufficiently why any of these issues demonstrate a failure to teach limitation [1.1]. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that Dziong identifies “two or more candidate routes” (i.e., A-B-C-D and A-C-D) for a “new connection” (i.e., a new recovery path to protect primary path SRLG 4 in the event of failure) with a “requested bandwidth” (i.e., 15 units) sufficient to protect against failure. See Pet. 27–31 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 70, 89, 90, 104, 105). The 15 units are the “units of demand” on SRLG 4 that must be protected. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 89 (“[E]ach solid line represents all of the demands that have the same link-detour path, which is represented by a corresponding broken line. For example, solid line 606 in SRLG 4 corresponds to one or more demands totaling 15 units of bandwidth between nodes A and D.”), 90. A link in a potential recovery path for that demand on SRLG 4, therefore, would need to have “sufficient recovery bandwidth” to protect against failure (i.e., at least 15 units). Id. ¶¶ 36, 104. That is reflected in the “SRLG 4 failure” column of Figure 6(b) for link A-B (part of the A-B-C-D recovery path shown in blue in Figure 6(a) above). On this record, we do not see why the fact that link A-B also protects against failures of SRLG 3 and 5 and has its own 12 units of demand, or the fact that SRLG 4 also has another 24 units of demand (which link A-B does not protect against), contradicts Petitioner’s position regarding Dziong and limitation [1.1]. See id. ¶¶ 89–90 (“link A-B is not part of the link-detour path for the other 24 XC units of demand on SRLG 4”). At this stage, we find that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Dziong teaches limitation [1.1]. Therefore, we need not evaluate any additional arguments regarding Sathyanath at this time. See Pet. 31–32; Prelim. Resp. 14–16.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We disagree based on the current record. Dziong refers to both “link-based” and “path-based” recovery. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6–8. And the two methods are similar in various ways, as Dziong recognizes. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 69 (“While some of the algorithms utilized in a link-based scheme are related to path-based recovery algorithms, there are significant modifications and special considerations that are made in the case of link-based recovery.”), 103 (“In some areas, the issues associated with recovery path calculation for link-based recovery [are] analogous to recovery path calculations for path-based restoration . . . .”). Dziong also purports to incorporate Sathyanath’s application by reference. Id. ¶ 1. And, as Petitioner points out, the references have similar disclosures and similar discussions of bandwidth sharing. See Pet. 1, 20–22; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 10–12, 36–39, 60, 65, 88; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4, 12–13, 41–45, 200. Thus, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider combining the teachings of Dziong and Sathyanath. See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.”); In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming an obviousness determination where two “references both teach processes directed to making the same class of products” and minor differences between the disclosures did not “negate the motivation to combine”). Second, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “fails to identify specific teachings in Sathyanath that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to implement in Dziong with a reasonable expectation of success” and “does not explain how the features would have been combined or why there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner, however, only mentions Petitioner’s introductory statement regarding reasons to combine and does not address the substance of Petitioner’s arguments for claim 1, where Petitioner explains how it is relying on Sathyanath as a secondary reference. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 22–23). For example, regarding the “sharing definition” of limitation [1.2], Petitioner argues that because Dziong only gives “limited details about the data format used for sharing” reserved bandwidth information, “it would have been obvious to consider . . . Sathyanath’s examples,” relying on two particular alleged “sharing definition[s]” in Sathyanath (i.e., the “aggregate node-link vector” and “TE/Share database”). Pet. 36–39. Based on the current record, we preliminarily find that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing, supported by the testimony of Dr. Mir, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such data formats to share reserved bandwidth information in the system of Dziong, with a reasonable expectation of success. See id.; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–39, 72–79.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,596,088 - PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-01081 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 2, 6, and 9–16 on all petition grounds and granted Qualcomm’s motion to join the Samsung IPR.
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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“§ 42.101(b) does not apply under the circumstances here. See Mot. Reply 3, 5. Referencing § 315(b)’s one-year time bar, the Federal Circuit has explained that § 315(b) “includes a specific exception to the time bar” because “[b]y its own terms, ‘[t]he time limitation . . . shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).’” Facebook, 973 F.3d at 1333 (alterations in original) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)). Consistent with § 315(b) and § 315(c), the Board’s rules provide that “[a]ny request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The Board’s rules also provide that § 42.101(b)’s one-year time bar “shall not apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.” Id. We instituted an inter partes review in the Samsung IPR on June 21, 2024. Samsung Inst. Dec. 1. That same day, Petitioner filed the Petition and the Motion for Joinder. Pet. 77; Mot. 12. Under § 42.122(b), Petitioner timely filed the Petition and the Motion for Joinder. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“If a petitioner believes that a claim term requires an express construction, the petitioner must include a statement identifying a proposed construction of the particular term and where the intrinsic and/or extrinsic evidence supports that meaning.” PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 44 (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”).3 “On the other hand, a petitioner may include a statement that the claim terms require no express construction.” Id. In the petition in the Samsung IPR, Samsung contended that “the Board does not need to construe any claim term for purposes of evaluating the prior art,” i.e., that “the claim terms require no express construction.” Samsung Pet. 15. In the Samsung IPR Institution Decision, we determined that “no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether [Samsung] satisfies the ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard for instituting trial.” Samsung Inst. Dec. 23. slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.” Id. But roadmapping concerns are “minimized” when “a petitioner files a later petition that raises unpatentability challenges substantially overlapping with those” in an earlier petition and “the later petition is not refined based on lessons learned from later developments.” Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00861, Paper 18 at 5 (Vidal Aug. 23, 2022) (Director decision) (precedential) (“Code200”); see Expedia, IPR2022-00785, Paper 16 at 9. Here, Petitioner presents substantively identical challenges to claims 2, 6, and 9–16 in the ’449 patent based on the same prior art and the same unpatentability theories as Samsung presents in the Samsung IPR. Compare Pet. 16–71, with Samsung Pet. 15–68; see Mot. Resp. 1. And as discussed above, copying a previously instituted petition is “common in the joinder context” and “an accepted approach.” Expedia, IPR2022-00785, Paper 16 at 7–9; see supra § III.C.1. Further, any differences between the Petition and Samsung’s petition did not result from roadmapping to correct a deficiency in Samsung’s petition because the Board instituted review in the Samsung IPR. See Code200, IPR2022-00861, Paper 18 at 5; Gen. Plastic, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 17; Samsung Inst. Dec. 87. For these reasons, factor (3) does not favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 35
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,373,449 - Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co., Limited v. Semisilicon Technology Corp.InstitutedPTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00156 · APJ Elizabeth J Reagan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6 and 8 under all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail on at least claim 1 over Kuang.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is statutorily authorized 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) (2018). We determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’546 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–6 and 8 of the ’546 patent.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“denied because of the Petition’s improper reliance on the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., contentions (1), (2), and (3) above), we have considered these arguments. However, we preliminarily determine, as discussed below, that certain of the cited prior art teaches all limitations of at least some of the claims. Therefore, reliance on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art is not required to supply any missing claim limitation(s) in at least one of the grounds. Accordingly, we need not expressly address these contentions of Patent Owner at this stage for purposes of our decision to institute trial. However, we invite the parties to provide further briefing on these issues during the course of the trial. With regard to Patent Owner’s contention that the Petition should be denied because the Schubert Declaration entirely repeats the Petition, and the Petition and Schubert Declaration include only conclusory statements of obviousness (contention (4) above), see Prelim. Resp. 20–24, we note that “[v]erbatim duplication between a brief and a declaration does not require giving the declarant’s testimony ‘little or no weight’ under Xerox,” provided that the testimony itself is sufficiently supported. Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC, IPR2023-00757, Paper 11 at 67 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2023) (emphasis added) (discussing Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022- 00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022)) (precedential); Hum Indus. Tech., Inc. v. Amsted Rail Co., IPR2023-00540, Paper 10 at 37 (PTAB Aug. 11, 2023) (“If declaration testimony is supported sufficiently and, in turn, supports contentions in the Petition, we do not give it little to no weight simply because it is repeated in the Petition”). Here, we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Schubert’s testimony closely mirrors the language in the Petition. Nevertheless, on the record before us, we find that the support, including, for example, prior art citations and/or technical reasoning, provided in the declaration and repeated in the Petition is sufficient for demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to at least one of the claims under at least one of the grounds. While expert testimony that mirrors the language of the petition, without more, may provide little help to the Board, we have evaluated the Schubert Declaration to determine the amount of weight attributable to the testimony therein at this stage of the proceeding, based on the support provided for the testimony. See 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.”).” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the Schubert Declaration, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related discipline, and 6 years of practical experience in designing or fabricating LED lighting systems, including controlling and driving LEDs,” or “[a]lternatively . . . would have had a master’s degree and four years of experience, or a Ph.D. degree and two years of experience.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See generally Prelim. Resp.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe terms in controversy 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) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we determine that no claim term requires express construction at this stage of the proceeding, with the exception of the term “synchronous signals” in limitation 1[D], which requires interpretation to the extent necessary to assess the merits of the parties’ assertions. The Specification does not expressly define “synchronous signals.” See generally Ex. 1001. Petitioner proposes a definition of “synchronous signals” based on how “a POSITA would have understood the term,” as: “signals that are sent to the slave nodes to control their corresponding LED strings at the same time.” Pet. 16–17. Patent Owner argues that there is no support for Petitioner’s definition of “synchronous signals,” but Patent Owner does not propose an express construction of the term. See Prelim. Resp. 21–23, 25–26. In the discussion on the merits below, we discuss the interpretation of the term “synchronous signals.” See infra Sec. III.D.2.a.v. As noted below, we invite the parties to present briefing on the interpretation of this term during trial.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,884,546 - PTAB · Mar 4, 2024 · IPR2023-01239 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14–18, 20–23, and 25–29 on all three asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim, and accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all challenged claims of the ’101 patent on the grounds of unpatentability presented. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded it would be appropriate to deny institution merely on the basis of alleged trivial errors such as those identified by Patent Owner. See Prelim Resp. 1. To the extent Petitioner “cit[ed] the wrong Wang reference” (id.), this error was addressed in and corrected pursuant to our November 29, 2023, Order Granting Motion to Correct Clerical or Typographical Mistakes (Paper 13), entered prior to Patent Owner’s filing of the Preliminary Response, with Petitioner subsequently filing a corrected Petition and Declaration of Clifford Reader, Ph.D. Moreover, Patent Owner does not cite to any authority in support of discretionary denial of institution based on findings that a petitioner has not given a petition “due attention.” Cf. USPTO Notice of Proposed Rule Making “Changes Under Consideration to Discretionary Institution Practices, Petition Word-Count Limits, and Settlement Practices for America Invents Act Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”, 88 Fed. Reg. 24,503 (April 21, 2023) available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-21/pdf/2023- 08239.pdf. Accordingly, we decline to deny institution based on these arguments. 2. Identification of Claim Construction, Structure or Acts Corresponding to Means-Plus-Function Limitations Patent Owner asserts that the requested inter partes review should be” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“the ’101 patent, the Examiner cited, inter alia, the Hejna prior art reference but did not apply or reject the claims based on that or any other prior art reference. Ex. 1002, 37, 39. There is no disagreement the Chou reference was never cited or considered by the Examiner. Under Becton, Dickinson factor (a), we consider the similarities and material differences between the asserted Chou and Hejna references. Patent Owner contends “[a]lthough Petitioner argues that Chou discloses or renders obvious element [1d], examination of the actual disclosure of Chou reveals that its disclosure is substantially the same as Hejna, prior art of record.” Prelim. Resp. 46. Patent Owner argues that Chou’s disclosures of (1) selecting a target arrival time for each frame sufficiently in advance of its playback time, (2) controlling an upper bound on the time of arrival of bits into the client buffer, and (3) selection of a code rate such that the frame’s arrival time is as close to the target arrival time as possible, relied upon by Petitioner for teaching limitation [1d], are substantially the same as that of Hejna. Id. at 46–47 (citing Pet. 35; Chou, Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 27; Hejna, Ex. 2011, 4:60–63, 8:50–57, 14:3–7). Addressing Becton, Dickinson factors (a) and (b), Patent Owner fails to persuade us that Chou’s disclosure is substantially the same as or cumulative of Hejna’s. Even if, as alleged by Patent Owner, Hejna discloses subject matter corresponding to that disclosed by Chou, which subject matter is asserted by Petitioner as teaching claim 1’s element [1d], it is not clear why the disclosures are otherwise substantially the same. Although recognizing the Examiner’s reasons for allowance are based on the combination of limitations corresponding to claim 1’s elements [1b], [1d], and [1e], Patent Owner’s argument addresses only Petitioner’s reliance on Chou for teaching claim 1’s element [1d]. See Prelim. Resp. 46. Furthermore, evidence extrinsic to the disclosures themselves does not suggest Chou’s disclosure is likely to be the same or substantially the same as Hejna. For example, the two references list no inventor in common, do not relate back to a common priority document, we ascertain no commonly cited prior art references cited during their respective prosecutions, nor do we find any other indicia that the disclosures are the same or substantially the same. Compare Ex. 1004, code (75), with Ex. 2011, codes (56), (75).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundInstituted
“(ii) Motivations to Combine Second, at this preliminary stage, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chou and Wang. Pet. 74. As argued by Patent Owner, “Wang and Chou are directed to different technologies—active encoding applications and transport-layer protocols,” (see Prelim. Resp. 30, 34–35), and Petitioner does not persuasively explain, for example, why the two methods would be combined into a single method rather than implemented independently in their respective transport and application layers. (iii) Scope of Wang’s Teaching vis-à-vis Limitation [1d] Petitioner states “[i]f [Patent Owner] argues Chou doesn’t teach [1d], Wang does” (Pet. 62), concluding “Wang teaches calculating a change in code rate based on both the remaining time before reproduction start time and an available reproduction time, as required by [1d]” (id. at 63). Apart from a bare cross-reference to Ground 1 (see Pet. 62 (“See Ground 1, [1d]”)), Petitioner does not make any reference to Chou for teaching any aspect of limitation [1d] in connection the combination of Ground 2 (see generally id. at 62–65). Furthermore, although contending that “Chou and Wang both disclose controlling code rate to control buffer duration/fullness to prevent buffer underflow” (id. at 72), Petitioner does not clearly indicate that a POSITA would have had reason to combine Wang’s teaching of criteria used to maintain buffer fullness with Chou’s teaching of determining a code rate where the code rate “represents the data amount (the data size, e.g., the number of bytes) of content data for reproducing content at constant speed (reproducing content at 1x speed) for a unit time (e.g., one second)” (Ex. 1001, 7:7–11). Therefore, at this preliminary stage, we treat Petitioner’s Ground 2 as relying on Wang alone for teaching [1d].” slip op. at 54
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,752,101 - PTAB · Sep 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00154 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the IMU–Okabe and IMU–Okabe–Li obviousness grounds and rejecting the § 315(b) time-bar argument.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“district court complaint does not trigger the time bar under § 315(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 requires that “an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c); see also Rodriguez v. Fla. Dept. of Corrections, 748 F.3d 1073, 1076–77 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Because the Civil Rules require service of all pleadings, it follows that the exhibits to the pleading must also be served, regardless of whether they were filed at the same time.”); Sixta v. Thaler, 615 F.3d 569, 572 (5th Cir. 2010); Ringgold v. Burgett, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00836, 2022 WL 8044117, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2022). Here, Exhibits A–D to the complaint filed in the district court are part of the complaint. See Ex. 1026.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. Id. In a given case, one or more factors may predominate. Id.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 47). Patent Owner does not propose any claim construction in its Preliminary Response. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“given this laborious, non-graphical process for extracting a frame and creating a subsequent animation of the frame image in IMV6, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to modify IMV6 (as described in IMU) by at least enabling a user to animate an already-extracted frame image using simpler and more intuitive graphical user commands. Id. at 68–69 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 168). Petitioner contends that “Okabe teaches simple and graphical user commands that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found well-suited for implementing a GUI for at least animating an image (e.g., a frame image) in IMV6.” Id. at 69–70 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 170). According to Petitioner, “Okabe’s simple and graphical user commands thus enable creating looping animations ‘with less effort than with previous methods’ and ‘markedly reduces the user burden.’” Id. at 70 (citing Ex. 1009, 1–2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 170). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to modify IMV6 to include Okabe’s simple and graphical user commands to make the animation process easier, graphical, and less time consuming.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 171).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,621,469 - PTAB · Jul 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00382 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 19–29 on all asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 103 requires resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who knows the relevant art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. Id. One or more factors may predominate. Id.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms have their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Petitioner relies on the ordinary and customary meaning under Phillips. Pet. 7–8. At this stage, it is not necessary to construe explicitly any claim terms, because any explicit construction would not alter the outcome. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“obviousness showing for purposes of institution. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its contention that claim 19 would have been obvious over Knappe, Elliott, VPN Textbook, and Hendricks.” slip op. at 32
Claim constructioncites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,843,612 - PTAB · Jul 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00377 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–12 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown unpatentable.
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). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all challenged claims of the ’332 patent on the grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“working knowledge of the available audio and video conferencing art. Ex_1003 ¶27. A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and three or more years of professional experience relating to conferencing systems in packet-based networks, or without said professional experience, further education relating to conferencing systems in packet-based networks. Id. ¶¶24-28.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Petitioner relies on the ordinary and customary meaning under Phillips. Pet. 9–10. Based on the current record and without any opposition from Patent Owner, we discern no need for express construction of any term to resolve any controversy at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“3:41–49, Fig. 1; Ex. 1007, code (57), 5:35–39, 6:1–11, 8:16–39, Fig. 1). Further, Petitioner argues, the person of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Knappe and Elliott to produce . . . obvious, beneficial, and predictable results,” including “the sharing of collaboration data in a multiparty conference” and “the use of a VPN to protect communications between conference participants.” Id. at 21–25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 136, 138–153). For example, Petitioner argues, “[e]xchanging collaboration data was standardized (e.g., under the T.120 standard) and VPN tunneling was conventional by the time of Knappe and Elliott and the earliest claimed priority of the ’332 patent,” and “implement[ing] Knappe’s transmission of various types of data as collaboration data” “would have been obvious . . . in view of Elliott’s teachings . . . because this type of collaboration data would allow a greater variety of information among the participants, improving the experience and enhancing the effectiveness of collaboration in a variety of contexts.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 140–141). Still further, Petitioner contends, “[s]uch a combination would have simply involved combining prior art element according to known elements to yield predictable results, namely allowing participants in Knappe’s system to share various types of data during a conference for collaboration purposes.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 144). On the preliminary record before us and in the absence of any counterargument from Patent Owner, we are persuaded for purposes of this Decision that Petitioner provides a rational underpinning to support combining the teachings of Knappe and Elliott and makes a sufficient showing with respect to this limitation.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,253,332 - PTAB · Jan 7, 2022 · IPR2021-01306 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–26 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Uber would prevail on the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Petition because it “received its complaint on January 29, 2021 and waited six months to file this Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 7. Petitioner argues that it acted diligently, filing the Petition two months after receiving Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the district court litigation and seven months before the deadline in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Pet. 69. We determine that Petitioner acted diligently under the circumstances presented. Fintiv explains that “it is often reasonable for a petitioner to wait to file its petition until it learns which claims are being asserted against it in the parallel proceeding.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 11. In the district court litigation, Patent Owner joined with the defendants, including Petitioner, to seek extensions of the deadlines for infringement and invalidity contentions to May 19, 2021, and July 14, 2021, respectively. Ex. 3001 (“Joint Motion”). The parties stated that they “do not file this Joint Motion for the purpose of delay, but rather to allow the Parties to adequately address the issues associated with the pending Contentions and in order that justice be done.” Ex. 3001, 2. The district court granted the Joint Motion and moved the deadlines accordingly. Ex. 3002, 2. Patent Owner served its infringement contentions, in which it identified the claims of the ’838 patent it was asserting against Petitioner, on May 19, 2021. Ex. 1020. Petitioner served its invalidity contentions on July 21, 2021, after receiving an additional one-week extension. Ex. 1021, 5; Ex. 3003. Petitioner then filed the Petition just two days later, on July 23, 2021. Paper 3. Thus, this is not a situation where Petitioner waited around after serving invalidity contentions before filing the Petition. Contra Fintiv, Paper 11, at 11–12 (“If, however, the evidence shows that the petitioner did not file the petition expeditiously, such as at or around the same time that the patent owner responds to the petitioner’s invalidity contentions, or even if the petitioner cannot explain the delay in filing its petition, these facts have favored denial.”). Rather, Petitioner acted diligently upon learning of the asserted claims. Indeed, Patent Owner’s own representation to the district court supports Petitioner’s position. In particular, Patent Owner, as a movant on the Joint Motion, represented that a July 14, 2021, date was necessary for the invalidity contentions “to adequately address the issues.” The Petition was filed only nine days later than the July 14, 2021 date. Given its representation to the district court, we hardly see how Patent Owner expected Petitioner to act any faster in filing the Petition and still “adequately address the issues.” On balance, we find that Petitioner’s diligence in filing the Petition tips this factor against exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 9
- 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
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“from Makoto and Konishi. Pet. 9–11. Petitioner argues that Makoto’s mobile device 3041 transmits a group registration request containing the communication device ID of mobile device 3041 and the communication device IDs of a plurality of mobile devices belonging to a group to location service providing device 305. Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 105, 107–109; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 58–59). Petitioner argues that to the extent Makoto does not explicitly disclose that any of its mobile devices correspond to a vehicle, such a feature would have been obvious in view of Konishi, which discloses vehicle information terminal 12 mounted in each vehicle configured to transmit vehicle position information identifying the vehicle. Id. at 10–11 (citing Ex. 1008, code (57), ¶¶ 1, 4, 26–28, 31, 39; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 62–65). Petitioner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Makoto and Konishi because such a combination would have enabled the exchange of vehicle related information with other devices for the purpose of improving location-based services and/or features, such as exchanging location information between 7 We need not decide whether the preamble is limiting for purposes of this Decision because we determine that, on the record before us, the cited evidence sufficiently supports Petitioner’s undisputed contentions regarding the preamble. See § II.E.4 below. devices or allocating vehicles. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1, 4, 25; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 173; Ex. 1002 ¶ 66). Petitioner contends that combining the teachings of Makoto and Konishi as proposed would have required nothing more than mounting or otherwise associating such well-known devices into a vehicle. Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 5, 27–28, 31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67– 68).” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment or offer its own assessment. See generally Prelim. Resp. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of education and experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,341,838 - Facebook, Inc. / Whatsapp Inc. et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 17, 2019 · IPR2017-01427 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, rejecting Patent Owner’s argument that LG Electronics was estopped from maintaining the proceeding because its joinder made it Facebook and WhatsApp’s privy.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Finally, we are not persuaded that in our Final Written Decision we overlooked or misapprehended the role of LG Electronics in this proceeding as an alleged “privy,” as this issue is presented for the first time on rehearing. III. ORDER Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelDecided for patent owner
“When deciding “privity,” for estoppel purposes, however, it makes sense to focus on the relationship between the named Petitioner and the alleged privy in the prior inter partes review, i.e., the -225 case. See WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308, 1317–22 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2018) (discussing that a privity inquiry must be grounded in due process and that, in the context of § 315(b), the inquiry focuses on the relationship between the named IPR petitioner and the party in the prior lawsuit and noting that “privity analysis seeks to determine whether the relationship between the purported privy and the relevant other party is sufficiently close such that both should be bound by the trial outcome and related estoppels”); see also Shamrock Techs. Inc. v. Medical Sterilization, Inc., 903 F.2d 789, 793 (“What constitutes ‘privity’ varies, depending on the purpose for which privity is asserted.”). LG Electronics was not a party to the -225 case, and there is neither fact nor allegation in the record of actions 5 by LG Electronics in connection with any prior inter partes review that warrants a privity inquiry, at this stage in the proceeding.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“sense to focus on the relationship between the named Petitioner and the alleged privy in the prior inter partes review, i.e., the -225 case. See WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308, 1317–22 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2018) (discussing that a privity inquiry must be grounded in due process and that, in the context of § 315(b), the inquiry focuses on the relationship between the named IPR petitioner and the party in the prior lawsuit and noting that “privity analysis seeks to determine whether the relationship between the purported privy and the relevant other party is sufficiently close such that both should be bound by the trial outcome and related estoppels”); see also Shamrock Techs. Inc. v. Medical Sterilization, Inc., 903 F.2d 789, 793 (“What constitutes ‘privity’ varies, depending on the purpose for which privity is asserted.”). LG Electronics was not a party to the -225 case, and there is neither fact nor allegation in the record of actions 5 by LG Electronics in connection with any prior inter partes review that warrants a privity inquiry, at this stage in the proceeding.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 8,995,433 - Apple Inc. / Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 6, 2018 · IPR2017-00222 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving its determination that claim 3 was not shown unpatentable over Vuori or Malik unchanged.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We have reviewed the Petition again in light of Petitioner’s arguments. And we disagree that we overlooked or misapprehended the argument or that we misapprehended Malik’s disclosures. The Petition cites the Forys Declaration (Ex. 1003) at paragraphs 157−160, and relies on Malik’s disclosures at paragraphs 8, 32, and 33, for the limitation at issue. We reviewed and specifically pointed out why none of the cited passages of Malik and the Forys Declaration persuade us that Malik discloses the limitation. Final Dec. 39−40. In short, we determined that Malik’s recording of the voice message (recited “generating”), described in paragraph 33, occurs once the sender is authorized to send a voice message. Id. at 39. We found no particular control of the method of Malik’s recording based upon connectivity status because the sender will record the voice message regardless of whether the recipient is available or not. Id. at 39−40 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 8, 32−35). We are not persuaded that these findings were incorrect. Thus, we view Petitioner’s challenge of the Board’s decision as a mere disagreement with our reading of Malik, which differs from Petitioner’s characterization of the reference.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“arguments. And we disagree that we overlooked or misapprehended the argument or that we misapprehended Malik’s disclosures. The Petition cites the Forys Declaration (Ex. 1003) at paragraphs 157−160, and relies on Malik’s disclosures at paragraphs 8, 32, and 33, for the limitation at issue. We reviewed and specifically pointed out why none of the cited passages of Malik and the Forys Declaration persuade us that Malik discloses the limitation. Final Dec. 39−40. In short, we determined that Malik’s recording of the voice message (recited “generating”), described in paragraph 33, occurs once the sender is authorized to send a voice message. Id. at 39. We found no particular control of the method of Malik’s recording based upon connectivity status because the sender will record the voice message regardless of whether the recipient is available or not. Id. at 39−40 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 8, 32−35). We are not persuaded that these findings were incorrect. Thus, we view Petitioner’s challenge of the Board’s decision as a mere disagreement with our reading of Malik, which differs from Petitioner’s characterization of the reference.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,243,723
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.