- Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-01320 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 because it had instituted Google's original petition in IPR2024-00784, and denied Google's motion for joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDenied
“claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960 B1 (“the ’960 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00405 (“the Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784. See IPR2024-00784, Paper 12. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00784. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00784],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder. Here, Petitioner acknowledges that it “has two concurrent petitions challenging the validity of the same patent.” Notice 1. Although Petitioner provides “a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits” and “a succinct explanation of the differences” (id.), Petitioner requests that “should the Board decide to institute only a single petition against the ’960 patent, . . . the Board institute Petitioner’s Original Petition (in IPR2024-00784).” Id. Since, as discussed above, the Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder in the current IPR.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingDenied
“claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960 B1 (“the ’960 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00405 (“the Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784. See IPR2024-00784, Paper 12. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00784. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00784],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,073,960 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-01327 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–7, 10, 12–19, and 22–27 because the condition for Microsoft's petition and conditional joinder motion had not occurred.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“of claims 1–7, 10, 12–19, and 22–27 of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 B1 (“the ’954 patent”) (Paper 3) and a Conditional Motion for Joinder (Paper 2). In the Conditional Motion for Joinder, Petitioner “respectfully requests that the Board institute review of IPR2024-01327 based on the concurrently-filed petition and that it grant this motion if, and only if, the Board has previously denied institution of Microsoft Corporation, v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2024- 00846.” Paper 2, 1. Petitioner makes this request to “ensure that [it] is party to one (and only one) instituted inter partes review proceeding, preferably the proceeding inspired by [Petitioner’s] initial filing (i.e., the 846 Proceeding).” Id. at 1–2. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’954 patent in IPR2024-00846. See IPR2024-00846, Paper 8. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Conditional Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,886,954 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-01326 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied inter partes review of claims 1–6 and 8–17 because the condition for Microsoft’s petition and conditional joinder motion was not met.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“of claims 1–6 and 8–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730 B2 (“the ’730 patent”) (Paper 3) and a Conditional Motion for Joinder (Paper 2). In the Conditional Motion for Joinder, Petitioner “respectfully requests that the Board institute review of IPR2024-01326 based on the concurrently-filed petition and that it grant this motion if, and only if, the Board has previously denied institution of Microsoft Corporation, v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2024-00775.” Paper 2, 1. Petitioner makes this request to “ensure that [it] is party to one (and only one) instituted inter partes review proceeding, preferably the proceeding inspired by [Petitioner’s] initial filing (i.e., the 775 Proceeding).” Id. at 1–2. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’730 patent in IPR2024-00775. See IPR2024-00775, Paper 9. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Conditional Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,352,730 - Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01164 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 and 10–20 over Morris and Ray, and claims 8, 9, and 18 over Morris, Ray, and Cox.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’375 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 27 n.8. Moreover, all of our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner asserts that the claim term “exercise use data” needs to be construed to resolve the issues raised by Petitioner. PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner asserts that exercise use data is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” Id.; Ex. 2004 ¶ 32. Petitioner disagreed with this proposed construction in its briefing (Pet. Reply 1–5) but adopted it during the oral hearing (Tr. 14:12–15:17). The parties also agree that “exercise use data” includes time, distance, and calories of a user exercising on an exercise apparatus. PO Resp. 4–5, 14; Pet. Reply 3–4. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction. As a result, we do not need to construe this claim term further.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions. See PO Resp. We find that Petitioner has established that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 16–19, 27–28; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–147, 161–163; Ex. 1004, 5:27–29, 7:11–22, 9:55–57; Paper 8 (Scheduling Order), 9 (cautioning Patent Owner that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived).” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We have considered the testimony of Mr. van der Weide, who agrees with Patent Owner (see Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35, 45–52), but we give his testimony on these points little weight. Mr. van der Weide discusses Mr. Rawls’ testimony, but he does not meaningfully discuss Ray’s disclosures. See id. As a result, he does not reconcile his opinions with the apparently conflicting portions of Ray. In addition, Mr. van der Weide’s testimony is conclusory because he does not identify evidence or reasoning sufficient to support his opinion that Ray fails to teach or suggest these aspects of the claim as discussed above. 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 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,796,375 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,796,375 - Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01165 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Morris and Ray; the Board did not reach the alternative Ray–AAPA and Yi grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’340 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but we agree with Petitioner that these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 29 n.12. Moreover, our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends it means “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” PO Resp. 4. According to Patent Owner, the Specification of the ’340 patent defines this term. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001,6 1:43–46, 6:33–34, claims 4, 5, 17; Ex. 2004 ¶ 33). In its briefing, Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, arguing that it is “overly narrow . . . and arbitrarily excludes other forms of ‘exercise use data.’” Pet. Reply 1–2; see id. at 1–5 (further contesting Patent Owner’s proposed construction). However, during the oral hearing, Petitioner adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Tr. 14:12–15:17. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s narrower construction and assume that “exercise use data” is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” We do not need to further construe this term because Petitioner shows that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit 8 By not challenging Petitioner’s contentions as to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success, we also find that Patent Owner has waived any argument contesting these contentions. See Paper 8 (Scheduling Order), 9 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”). exercise data to a remote location, and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the combination proposed for the reasons explained by Petitioner, as set forth above.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“are contradictory and we also disagree with Patent Owner that Ray teaches away from “maintain[ing] communication between the exercise apparatus and the remote location while the user is determined by the controller not to be engaged with the operating member” as recited in claim 7. On the former point, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “improperly equates generation and reporting of exercise use data with maintaining a connection with a remote location.” See Pet. Reply 20. Petitioner previously asserted that generation and reporting of the data would stop when Ray does not detect a user, but this does not mean that the connection would also be stopped. On the latter point, “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that, to teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Patent Owner fails to point to anything in Ray that discourages or would otherwise lead one of ordinary skill in the art away from maintaining a connection with a remote location when exercise use data is not reported at that precise moment. Rather, Petitioner provides a reason with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to maintain the connection—“to avoid delays in trying to re-establish the connection once the user had come back.” Pet. 39. That position is supported by the testimony of Mr. Rawls. Ex. 1002 ¶ 186.” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 11,227,340 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,227,340 - Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01163 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Morris and Ray, with claims 10, 11, 13, and 20 also unpatentable over Morris, Ray, and Cox.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art, except that Patent Owner states that the industry experience would have been “in analyzing and/or designing exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field.” PO Resp. 15–16. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’227 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 28 n.10. Moreover, all of our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends it means “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” PO Resp. 4–6. According to Patent Owner, the Specification defines this claim term. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 51:37– 40:59–6:4). In its briefing, Petitioner disagreed with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, arguing that it is “overly narrow . . . and arbitrarily excludes other forms of ‘exercise use data.’” Pet. Reply 2–4. However, during the oral hearing, Petitioner adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Tr. 14:12–15:17. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s narrower construction and assume that “exercise use data” is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” We do not need to further construe this term because Petitioner shows that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction of it.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Morris and Ray because they provide complementary teachings and address similar objectives. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 5:41–48, 8:22–26, 11:56–61, 13:20–30; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 25, 33, 35, Abstr.; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138). Petitioner also asserts that Morris contemplates use of an optical sensor, provides exercise data and “a human analog display that mimic[s] the user’s bouncing motion,” and includes a signal processing and display system with the necessary capabilities to implement the combination. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 139–143; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32–36, 50, 56–58, claims 29–37, Figs. 6, 11–12C); see also id. at 26–27 (asserting that “including multiple sensors in treadmills was a routine and well-known task”) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 159–162). Petitioner further asserts that Ray expressly teaches that “its user validation and motivation technology could be ‘easily and affordably merged’ into a treadmill.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1004, 9:55–57) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–144). Finally, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the proposed combination because it would have improved Morris’ treadmill to add both “Ray’s motivational image that showed a thinner image of the user as the intensity and duration of exercise increased” and Ray’s ability to share exercise data with a remote location. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 7:11–22, 11:55–59, 13:50–57; Ex. 1006 ¶ 50; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138, 145); see also id. at 16 (arguing that detection of a user’s presence could provide benefits, including motivation (citing Ex. 1004, 8:22–26, 11:56–61; Ex. 1006 ¶ 25)), 41 (arguing that data transmission was “a well-known and routine task” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 188–189)). Patent Owner does not dispute these contentions. See PO Resp. We find that Petitioner has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 16–18, 26–27; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138, 140–145, 161, 189; see also, e.g., Ex. 1004, 5:27–29, 7:11–22, 9:55–57.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the testimony of Mr. van der Weide, who agrees with Patent Owner (see Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35, 60–71), but we give his testimony on these points little weight. Mr. van der Weide discusses Mr. Rawls’ testimony, but he does not meaningfully discuss Ray’s disclosure. See id. As a result, he does not reconcile his opinions with the apparently conflicting portions of Ray. In addition, Mr. van der Weide’s testimony is conclusory because he does not identify evidence or reasoning sufficient to support his opinion that Ray fails to teach or suggest these aspects of the claim. 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 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,032,227 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,032,227 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00784 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim across the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided 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, 59; see also Prelim. Resp. 19–21. 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. 23. 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. See Ex. 1001, 3:50–57. In particular, 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.” See id. (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, secured information,” nothing in the Specification limits “local, secured 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 Prelim. Resp. 23. 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.” slip op. at 8
- 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. 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, 26.7 That is, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Thus, the District Court’s determination that “hybrid device” is not indefinite did not constitute a construction of that term, much less provide a construction of “enabled” recited elsewhere in the claim. In any case, even if assuming arguendo that 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” as being limited to when an application, function, or service “receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key,” as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 8. b) Means-plus function analysis Patent Owner further contends that the term “enabling” “may further be defined by way of a means-plus-function analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 8. According to Patent Owner, “§ 112, para 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting a sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Patent Owner contends that because none of “the ‘local secured information’, ‘wireless communication interface’ [and] ‘enablement signal’ provide sufficiently definite structure,” the term 7 Even if the Court’s explanation that “[a]n application, function, or service is ‘enabled’ by a PDK when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key” is an express construction, the Board is not required to adopt that construction. See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“There is no dispute that the board is not generally bound by a prior judicial construction of a claim term.”).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions. In particular, we are unpersuaded that “enabling” may be defined by way of means-plus-function analysis. Prelim. Resp. 8. As Petitioner points out, “none of the claims of the ’960 patent recite the disputed limitation in ‘means-plus-function’ or ‘step-plus-function’ format.” Prelim. Reply 2. As Petitioner contends, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Id.; see also Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Although this presumption is rebuttable and can be overcome if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure (see Raining Computing v. Samsung Electronics America, 998 F.3d 1002, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2021)), we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that claim terms “wireless communication interface,” “local secured information,” and “enablement signal” fail to recite sufficiently definite structure. That is, Patent Owner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the terms could not be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art “to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure for the claimed functions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that the terms are “not used as ‘generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions.’” Prelim. Reply 3; see Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368. As Petitioner points out, “when a ‘structure-connoting term . . . is coupled with a description of the ‘term’s’ operation’ § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.” Id.; accord Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–20 of the ’960 patent to determine whether: 1) claims 1–6, 8–11, and 14–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Dua and Giobbi ’157; 2) claims 1–7, 10, 11, and 14–19 are unpatentable under 35” slip op. at 49
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,073,960 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00783 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–20 on five obviousness grounds: Dua and Giobbi ’157; that combination with Kotola; Buer; Buer with Giobbi ’157; and Buer with Nishikawa.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–20 of the ’289 patent to determine whether:” slip op. at 46
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“secured information,” as claimed, suggests an integrated, secure memory for storing information locally, wherein the information is secured. See Pet. 26– 27; see also Prelim. Resp. 28. 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],” this portion of the Specification merely shows an exemplary embodiment and not a definition. See Ex. 1001, 3:43–50. 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.” 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 secured information,” nothing in the Specification limits “local, secured 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.7 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” 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 › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The plain language of “hybrid device” does not suggest a requirement that the “hybrid device” comprises an integrated PDK. Further, nothing in the Specification clearly limits or redefines “hybrid device” to a device comprising an integrated PDK, as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 3– 4. Although Patent Owner contends that the District Court construed “hybrid device” as “comprising an integrated personal digital key (PDK)” (id. (citing Ex. 2001, 3)), as Patent Owner points out, the District Court’s construction was predicated on the use of “PDK” in the “hybrid device” recited in the independent claims of a family member of the ’289 patent. Prelim. Resp. 3–4. 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 of this term is necessary to resolve the parties’ issues in controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“are unpersuaded that “enabling” may be defined by way of means-plus-function analysis. Prelim. Resp. 14. As Petitioner points out, “none of the claims of the ’289 patent recite the disputed limitation in ‘means-plus-function’ or ‘step-plus-function’ format.” Prelim. Reply 2. As Petitioner contends, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Id.; see also Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Although, as Patent Owner argues, this presumption is rebuttable and can be overcome “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure” (Prelim. Sur-reply 1 (citing Raining Computing v. Samsung Electronics America, 998 F.3d 1002, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2021))), we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that “PDK,” “RDC,” “enabling signal,” and “local secured information” fail to recite sufficiently definite structure. Prelim. Resp. 14–17. That is, Patent Owner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the terms could not be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art “to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure for the claimed functions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that the terms are “not used as ‘generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions.’” Prelim. Reply 3; see Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368. As Petitioner points out, “when a ‘structure-connoting term . . . is coupled with a description of the ‘term’s’ operation’ § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.” Id.; accord Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,289 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00782 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 based on six § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
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 › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“are unpersuaded that “enabling” may be defined by way of means-plus-function analysis. Prelim. Resp. 17. As Petitioner points out, “none of the independent claims of the ’042 patent recite the disputed limitation in ‘means-plus-function’ or ‘step-plus-function’ format.” Prelim. Reply 2. As Petitioner contends, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Id.; see also Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Although, as Patent Owner argues, this presumption is rebuttable and can be overcome “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure” (Prelim. Sur-reply 1 (citing Raining Computing v. Samsung Electronics America, 998 F.3d 1002, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2021))), we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that “PDK,” “RDC,” and “enabling signal,” fail to recite sufficiently definite structure. Prelim. Resp. 17–20. That is, Patent Owner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the terms could not be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art “to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure for the claimed functions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. According to Petitioner, the terms are “not used as ‘generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions.’” Prelim. Reply 3; see Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368. As Petitioner points out, “when a ‘structure-connoting term . . . is coupled with a description of the ‘term’s’ operation’ § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.” Id.; see also Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368).” slip op. at 12
- 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. 13. In particular, we disagree that the District Court in the Samsung litigation 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, 26.8 That is, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Thus, the District Court’s determination that “hybrid device” is not indefinite did not constitute a construction of that term, much less provide a construction of “enabled” recited elsewhere in the claims. In any case, even if assuming arguendo that 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” as being limited to “exchanging an access key for information held within a service block of a PDK,” as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 28.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,646,042 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00775 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 12, and 14–17 are obvious over Burger and claims 3, 10, and 13 over Burger and Robinson.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 31
- 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 (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in wireless communications security,” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–23). 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 › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“In IPR2024-00232, we made clear that “exclud[ing] any active participant in a transaction” from the construction of third-party trusted authority would exclude preferred embodiments of the ’730 patent and, therefore, is presumptively incorrect. IPR2024-00232, Paper 10 at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:42–46, 6:32–64, 7:10–22, Figs. 3–5, 7; Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). We also explained that “active participation alone does not make an entity a party to the transaction.” Id. at 22–23. Instead, we evaluate a party’s relationship to the transaction to determine whether it is a principal party to the transaction or a third-party. Id. at 11 (“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.”), 22 (“We agree with Petitioner that, in this example, the TPCH is separate from, and thus a third party to, the principal parties to the transaction (the user and the vendor) and also a third party to the financial institution that pays the vendor.”). To be clear, below, we evaluate Petitioner’s showing as to obviousness over Burger based on the ordinary meaning of third-party trusted authority, namely, “a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“2. Remaining claim terms (including “access message”) Patent Owner acknowledges that “the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘access message’ is a message enabling entry to, communication with, or use of an object,” but argues that, “to capture all the disclosed embodiments,” enabling or announcing access,” allegedly consistent with a district court construction. Prelim. Resp. 2–7. As Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of success under the arguably narrower ordinary meaning of “access message,” it is not necessary, at this stage of the proceeding, to further construe this term. 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
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,352,730
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.