- Microsoft Corporation v. Eyesmatch Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00296 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–18 on all petition grounds and granted Microsoft’s motion to join IPR2025-00296 with IPR2024-00810.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“II. DECISION The challenges to the ’110 patent’s claims in this Petition are identical to the challenges in the ’810 IPR’s petition. See, e.g., Pet. 6; ’810 IPR, Paper 1, 8. Additionally, in this proceeding, Patent Owner has not argued that the Petition’s challenges lack sufficient merit to institute trial. See, e.g., Notice 1. For the same reasons we explained in the ’810 Institution Decision, we institute inter partes review of all challenges in the Petition.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Joinder is a matter within the Board’s discretion based on the particular circumstances of each proceeding. In this proceeding, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that joinder with the ʼ810 IPR would avoid duplication and promote the efficient resolution of both proceedings.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 8,982,110 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00842 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–29 based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and granted EndyMed’s motion to join the ’386 IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the foregoing reasons, the underlying premise of Serendia’s arguments here and in the ’386 IPR remains substantially the same. Thus, for the same reasons discussed in our decision instituting the ’386 IPR, we find that EndyMed demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of challenged claims 1–29 of the ’836 patent. See ’386 IPR, Paper 18. That is not to say, however, that Serendia may not ultimately persuade us at trial of the deficiency of EndyMed’s showing based on a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“evidences nonobviousness for four different patents. In this situation, a presumption of nexus is appropriate only if patent owner demonstrates that the claims of all four patents “generally cover the same invention.” See Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1377 (“Where a product embodies claims from two patents, a presumption of nexus can be appropriate only if the claims of both patents generally cover the same invention.”). “The same evidence of secondary considerations cannot be presumed to be attributable to two different combinations of features.” Id. at 1378 (citation omitted). “In such situations, the patentee retains the burden of proving the degree to which evidence of secondary considerations tied to a product is attributable to a particular claimed invention.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, Serendia does not demonstrate that the four different patents cover the same invention. See Prelim. Resp. 59–74. Indeed, Serendia does not address U.S. Patents 9,775,774, 9,320,536, and 10,869,812 at all. See id. That Serendia separately sought patent protection for each of these four patents suggests that these patents do not generally cover the same invention. Cf Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378 (“The same evidence of secondary considerations cannot be presumed to be attributable to two different combinations of features.”). We made a similar determination in the ’386 IPR. See, e.g., ’386 IPR, Paper 18 at 38 (“Patent Owner fails to set forth which patents ‘generally cover’ the Sylfirm X device.” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“We disagree with Serendia. EndyMed need not justify its delay where, as here, EndyMed satisfies the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the ’386 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, by rule, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”) (emphasis added). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’836 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely. Serendia also argues that joinder should be denied due to duplicative efforts with the parallel Delaware litigation, which involves the same parties and patent as here. See PO Opp. 3–4. That argument fails for the simple reason that EndyMed submits a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in the Delaware litigation the same grounds that are asserted in the petition here or any grounds that reasonably could have been raised here. See Pet. Reply 1–2. A Sotera stipulation mitigates concerns of duplicative efforts, and we decline to discretionarily decline institution where a petitioner makes such a stipulation. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Director Memo”), at 3, 7–8. Thus, we will not discretionarily deny the petition or motion for joinder on the basis of the parallel Delaware litigation.8” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“the joinder requirement of filing the petition within one month of our institution of trial in the ’386 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a), 42.1(a). Indeed, by rule, EndyMed could not have filed the instant petition prior to institution of the IPR it was seeking to join. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”) (emphasis added). And, although there is a one-year statutory bar from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, that bar does not apply to a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Thus, despite being filed more than one year from the service date of Serendia’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’836 patent, EndyMed’s petition and motion are nonetheless timely.” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,480,836 - PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01084 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Meta would prevail on at least one claim, including claim 14 over Avendano and Visser.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’213 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all challenged claims and grounds asserted in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2022).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Concurrently with the Petition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder seeking joinder as a party in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC, IPR2023-00276 (“the Amazon IPR”) and consolidation with the Amazon IPR. Paper 2. Patent Owner filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Paper 8. Subsequently, Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Motion for Joinder in light of the Board terminating the Amazon IPR based on settlement. Paper 9, 1–2. We grant Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had “at least a bachelor of science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with at least two years of relevant experience in a field related to acoustics, speech recognition, speech detection, or signal processing.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–23). Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional education or industry experience may compensate for a deficit in the other.” Id. Patent Owner proposes a nearly identical definition. Prelim. Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 26). Based on the current record and for purposes of analysis, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan as consistent with the ’213 patent and the asserted prior art. Our decision would not have changed had we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“At this stage, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed construction improperly imports an embodiment from the specification. “While we read claims in view of the specification . . . we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.” Hill- Rom Servs. Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F. 3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.” Id. “The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting. To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning and must clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). On this record, there is no such clear definition in the specification, express or implied. The disclosed filter β(z) “describes the relationship between O1 and calibrated O2 for speech.” Ex. 1001, 5:31–32. But the filter β(z) is merely a disclosed embodiment and does not define the claimed “filter that describes a relationship for speech.” See id. Patent Owner also points to no disclosure that disavows interpretations other than the example filter β(z). Our reviewing court “has repeatedly cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We decline Patent Owner’s invitation to limit the claims to unclaimed features. Further, because Patent Owner attempts to import an embodiment from the specification into claim 14, we need not determine at this stage whether claim 14’s “filter that describes a relationship for speech” is broad enough to encompass the disclosed calibration and delay filters, as Petitioner contends. See Prelim. Reply 2.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,321,213 - Momentum Dynamics Corporation v. Witricity CorporationRehearing grantedPTAB · Mar 16, 2022 · IPR2021-01165 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims were obvious over Stark, with Mecke also supporting certain distance claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. Because, as explained above, we do not treat Petitioner’s explanations in the Rehearing Request as belated, based on the explanations offered in the Rehearing Request, it was error to deny the Petition. Petitioner has shown that the Decision should be modified to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Response did not address this testimony. We credit this testimony of Dr. Young. This changed understanding alone is sufficient to justify a modification of the Decision to institute inter partes review, because on this record Petitioner has shown that Stark expressly discloses, in a tuned circuit environment where all frequencies are set to the same frequency, Q1 = Q2 = 1000. Because Stark’s prototype described in Chapter 7 is for tuned circuits, Stark reasonably would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art an implementation of its disclosed prototype, which has distance D satisfying limitation [1c], with each of Q1 and Q2 set to 1000. With the changed understanding of Figure 3-9, and the fact that Figure 3-9 shows setting Q1 = Q2 = 1000, we agree with Petitioner, on the record presented, that “it would have been obvious, to implement the same system [breadboard prototype] with Q values in the hundreds or thousands, as described with respect to limitation 1/6[d].” Pet. 36 n.8. Thus, limitations 1[c] and 1[d] would have been met together.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Response did not address this testimony. We credit this testimony of Dr. Young. This changed understanding alone is sufficient to justify a modification of the Decision to institute inter partes review, because on this record Petitioner has shown that Stark expressly discloses, in a tuned circuit environment where all frequencies are set to the same frequency, Q1 = Q2 = 1000. Because Stark’s prototype described in Chapter 7 is for tuned circuits, Stark reasonably would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art an implementation of its disclosed prototype, which has distance D satisfying limitation [1c], with each of Q1 and Q2 set to 1000. With the changed understanding of Figure 3-9, and the fact that Figure 3-9 shows setting Q1 = Q2 = 1000, we agree with Petitioner, on the record presented, that “it would have been obvious, to implement the same system [breadboard prototype] with Q values in the hundreds or thousands, as described with respect to limitation 1/6[d].” Pet. 36 n.8. Thus, limitations 1[c] and 1[d] would have been met together.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“I note that while Figure 3-9 appears immediately under the heading “3.1.3 Physical interpretation of ω1 ≠ ω2”, this appears to be the result of a spacing issue with Stark’s figures. Stark’s pole-zero plots are part of its Section 3.1.2 (“Solution with primary and secondary tuned together”). Stark at 52; 93. This is confirmed by the MATLAB code included in Stark and used to generate these plots, which uses only a single value ωn, rather than a distinct ω1 and ω2. Stark at 237–38. Response did not address this testimony. We credit this testimony of Dr. Young. This changed understanding alone is sufficient to justify a modification of the Decision to institute inter partes review, because on this record Petitioner has shown that Stark expressly discloses, in a tuned circuit environment where all frequencies are set to the same frequency, Q1 = Q2 = 1000. Because Stark’s prototype described in Chapter 7 is for tuned circuits, Stark reasonably would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art an implementation of its disclosed prototype, which has distance D satisfying limitation [1c], with each of Q1 and Q2 set to 1000.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,741,734
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.