- Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01250 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–5, 7, 9–16, or 20 unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Min’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s [degree] in [electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science], physics, or equivalent, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures, protocols and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 59). Dr. Min testifies that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. Additionally, Petitioner contends that Dr. Min “exceeded this level of experience by the priority date.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1010 (curriculum vitae of Dr. Min)). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’946 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Neither party contends that any claim terms require an express construction to resolve the present controversy. Pet. 8 (“For purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner does not believe any terms require a formal construction.”); see generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, Petitioner explains that the Petition is structured such that “Ground 1 is based on Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the district court litigation, where the claimed ‘MUD module’ is generally mapped to multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) receivers in a wireless network.” Pet. 2. Petitioner contends that “[u]nder this broad interpretation of a ‘MUD module,’ Walton’s MIMO receiver renders every challenged claim obvious.” Id. In contrast to Ground 1, the Petition states that “Ground 2 is based on the plain meaning of ‘MUD module,’ which is a component that detects, separates, and decodes signals from multiple users transmitting simultaneously over the same frequency band.” Id. Petitioner contends that, “[a]pplying the correct meaning of the term, Walton’s MIMO receiver does not necessarily comprise a MUD module.” Id. Therefore, Petitioner explains that “Ground 2 combines Walton with Learned, which expressly discloses [a] multi-user detector, and thus renders every challenged claim obvious in combination with Walton.” Id. at 2–3.7 In other words, the Petition presents Ground 1 and Grounds 2/3 as alternatives depending on the meaning of 7 Although not specifically relevant to claim construction, Petitioner explains that “Ground 3 further combines Walton and Learned with Quigley, to the extent Patent Owner argues Walton does not disclose providing a burst control input.” Pet. 3. “MUD module,” where Ground 1 is based on Petitioner’s understanding of Patent Owner’s interpretation of the term and Grounds 2 and 3 are based on Petitioner’s interpretation of the term as having its plain meaning. Petitioner further contends that “[e]very other claim term carries its ‘ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . .” Id. at 8. Although Petitioner presents a potential dispute regarding the meaning of “MUD module,” we need not construe this term expressly because the determination we reach herein does not depend on which meaning MUD module is applied. Accordingly, we do not construe any claim terms expressly because express constructions are not necessary to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owners contends that the factors set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), weigh heavily in favor of discretionary denial. Prelim. Resp. 40–46; Paper 10. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 74–77; Paper 9. In light of the conclusion reached above, we need not address the parties’ arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,089,946 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01248 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11, 16, and 21 unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’071 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes a specific construction of any claim term, although Petitioner contends each term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 16; see generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because the meaning of the terms is not in dispute and an express construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We find the Petition lacking in particularity because it does not clearly identify what aspect of Jin is alleged to teach the unique signal parameters (or unique estimated signal parameters) recited in claim 1. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if — (3) the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim . . . .”). First, as reflected above, the Petition asserts that something called a “unique pilot parameter” teaches the recited unique estimated signal parameters. But “unique pilot parameter” is not a term or phrase recited in Jin. See Prelim. Resp. 19 (arguing the same). So, when Petitioner states “Jin discloses that the base station uses the unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique estimated signal parameters’) to ‘identify which user (i.e., mobile terminal) has transmitted the received data,’” it is not clear what element in Jin Petitioner intends to identify by the term “unique pilot parameter.” Dr. Min’s testimony does not help resolve the ambiguity in the Petition. In particular, Dr. Min also refers to a “unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique signal parameter’) for each user.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 89. But, as noted above, Jin does not disclose an element referred to as a “pilot parameter” and it is not clear what element Dr. Min intended to identify in Jin.8” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,814,071 - Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00139 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the CAB Website and CAB Whitepaper; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2–3 years of experience in electrical utility systems, planning, and design” and “the number of years of experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa.” Pet. 23. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner contended Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill is too high. Prelim. Resp. 32. According to Patent Owner, a POSITA would have had “an associate degree in an engineering discipline, and 1–2 years’ experience in electrical power systems” and “[a] lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 21). Our Institution Decision states that we preliminarily determined a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline and two years of experience in electrical power systems. Inst. Dec. 5–6. Patent Owner’s Response states that Patent Owner applies the Board’s 9 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. preliminary determination (PO Resp. 6, n.3), and Petitioner did not subsequently address the issue. Based on the full record, we determine a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline and two years of experience in electrical power systems. We are satisfied that this comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’291 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“the cable hangers (which support the current wires, data wires and other wires). That is, a single multi-function line supports the cable hangers, as a messenger wire, and provides a current path, as a grounding conductor.” Ex. 1001, 2:33–37 (emphasis added). And the sentence following that passage, which is cited by both parties, states: “Accordingly, as used herein, a ‘multi-function line’ means a tension member that supports current wires and/or cable hangers, and, which is conductive.” Ex. 1001, 2:37–40 (emphasis added). The sentences immediately following that sentence provide additional context, stating: “That is, a messenger wire is not a ‘multi-function line.’ Similarly, a conductor that does not support other constructs is not a ‘multi-function line.’” Ex. 1001, 2:40–42 (emphasis added). Thus, the specification indicates that a multi-function line is a tension member, “is conductive,” and supports other constructs such as current wires and/or cable hangers. In contrast, the specification does not mention “effective ground fault current path.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Based on the entire record, Petitioner shows that the combination of the CAB Website and the CAB Whitepaper satisfy the limitations of claim 1. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings, at least because the CAB Website expressly refers to the CAB Whitepaper, suggesting to a POSITA that the references’ teachings should be considered together. Pet. 47–48; see Reply 6–8.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“First, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not shown that the cited products are coextensive with, and have the required nexus between, the products and claim 1. See Reply 18–29. Even if Patent Owner sells an “Integrated Grounding System” that satisfies each limitation of claim 1, that system is undeniably comprised of “various” “exemplary” interchangeable parts that have uses outside of the claimed invention, that at least purportedly relate to many other of Patent Owner’s patents, and that were known in the prior art. E.g., Ex. 2064, ¶ 304 (identifying “exemplary” product part numbers, including CAB-9605, CAB-9705, CAB-9760, and CAB-9607), n.10; App’x A, A5 (identifying a part number “representative” part the “mid-pier kit”); Ex. 1049, 6–7 (identifying Patent Owner’s patent’s relating to different part numbers). For example, Patent Owner identifies two patent numbers purportedly protecting its “grounding Mid Pier Kit,” the ’551 patent and US Pat. No. 10,461,518. Ex. 1049, 6–7. Patent Owner identifies three of its patents as protecting its copper messenger wire, part number CAB-9605: (i) the ’551 patent, (ii) US Pat. No. 10,461,518, and (iii) US Pat. No. 10,811,859. Id. And Patent Owner identifies eight different patents, but not the ’551 patent, as protecting the cited cable hangers, CAB- 9760. Id. And as explained in the analysis above, all of these parts were known and available in the prior art, as evidenced by the CAB Website and the CAB Whitepaper. We can discern no nexus between the features of the ’551 patent and the alleged objective evidence of nonobviousness given that the so-called “Integrated System” includes multiple, interchangeable, and “exemplary” part numbers that were known in the prior art. See Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“But our case law makes clear that objective evidence of nonobviousness lacks a nexus if it exclusively relates to a feature that was known in the prior art—not necessarily well-known.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); see also Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.”).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 10,177,551 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,177,551 - Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · IPR2021-00045 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Remand
Claims 1–3, 9–11, and 17–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Masters; claims 5, 13, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over Masters and Stone.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“stated that on remand, the Board should “adopt a new construction that includes application instance-level, application-level, device-level, and tierlevel data” and “the Board should determine whether Masters, including its Decision Review Display and Path Display, renders the ‘collecting’ and ‘correlating’ limitations obvious in view of the Board’s new construction. In addition, the Board should consider Masters’ Appendix J in assessing whether Masters’ Path Display teaches life cycle events and the claimed correlating step.” Netflix, 2024 WL 3507601 at *8. After the Federal Circuit issued its mandate, with our authorization, the parties filed the following briefs: Petitioner’s Opening Brief on Remand (Paper 41, “Pet. Remand Br.”), Patent Owner’s Response Brief on Remand (Paper 42, “PO Remand Resp.”), Petitioner’s Reply Brief on Remand (Paper 43, “Pet. Remand Reply”), and Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply Brief on Remand (Paper 44, “PO Remand Sur-Reply”).” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We determine a POSITA would have had “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a similar discipline, with one or two years of experience,” which is consistent with the parties’ arguments and testimony of the parties’ declarants, as well as the level reflected in the ’722 patent and the asserted prior art. We determine it is unnecessary to reach the parties’ additional statements of the knowledge and skills that a POSITA would allegedly possess, as the parties’ arguments do not hinge on those statements.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s proposed construction to be generally consistent with the intrinsic record (including the claim language) and the Federal Circuit’s guidance. However, we decline to adopt the use of “related to” instead of “associated with” in Petitioner’s proposed construction because we determine the language used in the claim, “associated with,” is clear enough on its face and Petitioner provides no persuasive justification for altering the plain meaning to “related to”. Consistent with the Federal Circuit’s guidance, we determine the proper construction of “performance data” further includes data pertaining to the performance of a server and/or a technology tier. Netflix, 2024 WL 3507601 at *6 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:56–57, 4:3–8, 4:14–18, 7:26–29). Accordingly, we determine “performance data” means “data associated with the performance of one or more application instances, including instance-level, application-level, device-level, and tierlevel data and includes data pertaining to the performance of a server and/or a technology tier.” We determine no other terms require express construction. 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) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Applying our construction of “performance data,” we agree with Petitioner that, among other things, the CPU utilization and review time shown in Masters’ Figure 5.6.2.1-2 and Figures 8A and 8B fall within the scope of the claimed “performance data.” See Pet. 50–56; Reply 17. The CPU utilization data and review time data are both data associated with the performance of one or more application instances. Further, the Figures and corresponding description in Appendix J evidence collection of the performance data for each application instance. Pet. 34–38, 50; Ex. 1024, 39. Similarly, the startup of a copy of the Auto-Special process on Altair11 constitutes a life cycle event, as it is the creation of an application instance, and the termination of Auto-Special on Altair7 is another example of a life cycle event, as claimed. Ex. 1024, 39; see Pet. 39–44. We agree with Petitioner that these Figures and related descriptions in Masters teach collecting performance data and correlating the performance data to the life cycle events. See Pet. 46, 50–55. We also agree with Petitioner that Masters’ Figures 9A and 9B similarly show the collection and correlation of performance data, at least with the response time, action time, CPU score, and similar metrics depicted in the Figures. Pet. 47–49. Figures 9A and 9B show the correlation of the performance data to a life cycle event, by, for example, depicting the performance issue (an overload on Altair11) that cause the creation of a new application instance on Altair3. Pet. Reply 12. We agree with Petitioner that the response time to trigger the creation of an application instance on Altrair3 and the amount of time the application instance takes to start are two examples of performance data correlated with the life cycle event. Pet. Masters, Figures 9A and 9B depict Masters’ Decision Review Display that provides a summary of allocation and reallocation actions taken by the RMA, and “[f]or each action, timing information regarding how long it took the Resource Management functions, e.g., the Resource Manager . . . and the Program Controller . . ., to both arrive at a decision and to enact the decided action are shown along with host fitness scores that were used in arriving at the allocation decision.” Ex. 1004, 30:1–10. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments that the Masters’ “response time” “cannot be associated with the performance of the ‘Semi-Auto’ application instance because the response time passes before the instance exists” (PO Remand Br. 4), and we agree with Petitioner that the time required to start an application instance is a metric associated with the creation of that instance. In sum, we agree with Petitioner that Masters teaches the Correlating Limitations.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,457,722 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,457,722 - Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · IPR2021-00431 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Remand
Claims 4, 6–8, 12, 14–16, 20, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Masters.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“stated that on remand, the Board should “adopt a new construction that includes application instance-level, application-level, device-level, and tierlevel data” and “the Board should determine whether Masters, including its Decision Review Display and Path Display, renders the ‘collecting’ and ‘correlating’ limitations obvious in view of the Board’s new construction. In addition, the Board should consider Masters’ Appendix J in assessing whether Masters’ Path Display teaches life cycle events and the claimed correlating step.” Netflix, 2024 WL 3507601 at *8. After the Federal Circuit issued its mandate, with our authorization, the parties filed the following briefs: Petitioner’s Opening Brief on Remand (Paper 37, “Pet. Remand Br.”), Patent Owner’s Response Brief on Remand (Paper 40, “PO Remand Resp.”), Petitioner’s Reply Brief on Remand (Paper 41, “Pet. Remand Reply”), and Patent Owner’s Sur-reply Brief on Remand (Paper 42, “PO Remand Sur-reply”).” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We determine a POSITA would have had “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a similar discipline, with one or two years of experience,” which is consistent with the parties’ arguments and testimony of the parties’ declarants, as well as the level reflected in the ’722 patent and the asserted prior art. We determine it is unnecessary to reach the parties’ additional statements of the knowledge and skills that a POSITA would allegedly possess.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s proposed construction to be generally consistent with the intrinsic record (including the claim language) and the Federal Circuit’s guidance. However, we decline to adopt the use of “related to” instead of “associated with” in Petitioner’s proposed construction. Consistent with the Federal Circuit’s guidance, we determine the proper construction of “performance data” further includes data pertaining to the performance of a server and/or a technology tier. Netflix, 2024 WL 3507601 at *6 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:56–57, 4:3–8, 4:14–18, 7:26–29). Accordingly, we determine “performance data” means “data associated with the performance of one or more application instances, including instance-level, application-level, device-level, and tier-level data and includes data pertaining to the performance of a server and/or a technology tier.”” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With that backdrop, we agree with the parties that the claim language itself sufficiently defines the term “application instance” and that it is unnecessary to further define the term.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,457,722 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,457,722 - Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00178 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 14–22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Carr and Almy; the Board did not reach the alternative Caveney grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2–3 years of experience in electrical utility systems, planning, and design.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner also asserts that the number of years of experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Med. AB, 958 F.3d 1348, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We agree with Petitioner that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 recite an intended use. The bodies of both claims recite a structurally complete system comprising a messenger wire and a plurality of cable hangers that are disposed along and suspended from the messenger wire and have a plurality of cable carrying surfaces structured to support at least one electrical cable of the plurality of electrical cables and are separated by a cable carrier divider. Ex. 1001, 10:27–37. According to the preambles, the system are used “for organizing a plurality of electrical cables extending from a plurality of solar panels.” Id. at 10:24–26. slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s construction “only replaces ‘organizing’ with ‘separating’” and “organizing” has a broader ordinary meaning than separating and includes “to arrange or order” not merely to separate. Reply 4 (citing Exs. 1052, 1053); id. at 5 (“Separated cables may be organized. But not all organized cables are necessarily separated.”). We adopt Petitioner’s interpretation of “organizing” as “to arrange or order.” Reply 4. This meaning is consistent with the preamble language of “[a] system for organizing a plurality of electrical cables extending from a plurality of solar panels” comprising a messenger wire and cable hangers disposed along and suspended from the messenger wire with cable carrying surfaces that support electrical cables separated by a divider. Ex. 1001, 10:24–37. The system organizes electrical cables by (1) suspending them from a messenger wire on cable hangers, (2) supporting the cables on cable carrying surfaces of each cable hanger, and (3) separating the cables on adjacent cable carrying surfaces of the cable hangers by using a divider. The “organizing” in the preamble encompasses each of these ways of arranging or ordering the electrical cables but is not limited to any particular way of doing so and merely recites an intended use of the systems. Because we interpret the preamble as reciting an intended use of the systems, we also interpret this portion of the preamble as an intended use of those systems. Our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s interpretation that organizing means separating because the combination of Almy and Carr renders obvious a system for organizing electrical cables extending from solar panels by suspending them from a messenger wire on cable hangers that also separate the cables, as discussed infra in Section II.D. See Reply 12 n.4.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that a skilled artisan would not have replaced Almy’s wire loops with Carr’s hangers to prevent cross-induction because Almy discloses only DC power cables that extend from the photovoltaic (PV) modules to a combiner box and inverter that converts DC current to AC current without disclosing AC cables or data cables in close proximity to Almy’s DC cables that could create a cross-induction effect. PO Resp. 39– 44 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 15, 34, Figs. 3, 6; Ex. 2038 ¶¶ 153, 154, 157–160, 163; Ex. 2004, 85:23–86:2, 148:9–14, 154:12–19). We disagree. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have used Carr’s cable hangers to organize electrical cables in Almy’s solar power system and prevent cross-induction between AC, DC, and/or data cables. Pet. 45–46; Reply 12–13; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–55. A skilled artisan would know that Carr’s cable hangers would improve Almy’s solar power system by supporting AC, DC, and/or data cables without cross-induction. Pet. 46; Reply 13; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 48, 96–99; Ex. 1005, 1:27–34, 2:15–27, Fig. 1. Carr’s hangers would satisfy regulations requiring AC and DC cables to be separated. Reply 13. Because Almy’s wire loops cannot comply with NEC regulations that require the separation of AC, DC, and data cables, they limit the ability of Almy’s system to power trackers with AC current to move PV modules to track the sun and obtain maximum power. Ex. 1001, 1:20–56; PO Resp. 7–8 (describing the solar industry trend to use trackers and NEC rules requiring separation of AC, DC, and signal cables for such systems). Carr’s hangers would enable Almy’s solar power system to organize AC, DC, and data cables for solar panels and trackers on a single messenger wire to increase efficiency, comply with NEC rules, prevent cross induction, and avoid the costs of trenching and cable trays. Reply 12–13; Pet. 45–47; Ex. 1005, 1:27–34 (Carr’s cable hangers separate arial conducting cables to minimize cross induction); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32–36 (describing the benefits of separating electrical cables with hangers), 48, 96–98 (wire loops cannot prevent cross induction between current- and non-current-carrying cables as hangers do); Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–55 (NEC rules require separation of AC, DC, and signal cables); see Metso Mins., Inc. v Powerscreen Int’l Distrib., 526 F. App’x 988, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding a motivation to combine to create a solution that complies with road permit regulations). Carr’s hangers would provide a simple, robust means to support and separate current- and non-current-carrying cables to prevent cross induction without deforming under load in Almy’s solar power system. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”); Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)) (“This is the so-called ‘known-technique’ rationale. And if there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.”); DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (an implicit motivation to combine exists when a combination produces a stronger, cheaper, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, and/or more efficient product); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32 (IEEE Standard 142 and NSC Rule 235G require spacing of current-carrying and data cables to avoid cross-linking), 42 (2014 NEC spacing requirements), 96–99 (Carr’s hangers support and space conducting cables to prevent cross-linking).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 11,349,291 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,349,291 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01274 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable: claim 3 as obvious over Clark, Manner, and Santoro; claim 4 as obvious over Clark and Manner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“We have considered the parties’ respective arguments concerning the construction of this claim term and, for the following reasons, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “compartment” as “an enclosed space for containing an item.” First, Petitioner does not dispute that it agreed to adopt Patent Owner’s construction in the district court proceeding between the parties. Pet. Reply 5; Tr. 8:14–21. Second, Petitioner cites to several Board Decisions in which the panels construed claim terms even though the parties agreed to constructions in parallel litigation and argues that the agreement between Petitioner and Patent Owner in the parallel district court proceeding has no bearing on this proceeding. Id. (citing Cook Grp. Inc. v. Cook Med. LLC, IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7–8 (PTAB May 16, 2017); Arris Int’l PLC v. Sony Corp., IPR2016-00834, Paper 54 at 26–29 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2017); Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18–19 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2016)). But, those cited decisions are not precedential and two of them were decided under the “broadest reasonable interpretation standard,” not the Phillips standard, thereby rendering a stipulation between the parties in district court less informative to the panels’ determinations. See Apple, IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18; Cook Grp., IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7. More importantly, given Petitioner’s agreement with Patent Owner’s construction in the district court, we see no reason to apply a different construction here simply because Petitioner proposed that construction prior to agreeing to the construction with Patent Owner in district court. Tr. 11:21–25.8” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act as his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“For the following reasons, we determine that the portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent relied on by Patent Owner do not “prov[e] the existence of a ‘clear and unmistakable’ disclaimer that would have been evident to one skilled in the art.” Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1063– 64.14 Patent Owner argues that the prosecution history redefined the term forward “by disclaiming workstations that are mounted on top of or over the height adjustment mechanism.” PO Resp. 29. Claims 3 and 4 recite “a work platform including a work surface and compartments for containing items” not a “workstation.” It is unclear what Patent Owner is referring to as the “workstation,” i.e., the recited “work platform,” the recited “work surface,” or the combination of “work platform,” “work surface,” and the recited “compartments.” Patent Owner injects further ambiguity by rephrasing the disclaimer, as “Applicant explicitly disclaimed carts having work stations mounted entirely to the top of the height adjustment mechanism (e.g., carts like Clark and Reeder).” Id. at 30 (emphasis added). Regardless of these 14 Because of our determination that the requirements for a clear and unmistakable disclaimer are not met by the cited portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent, we need not and do not reach the question of relevance of the statements in the prosecution of the ’650 patent to the claims of the ’668 patent. ambiguities, Patent Owner misinterprets the statements in the prosecution history. The applicant’s primary argument was that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have incorporated moveable work surfaces above the “compartment” of Clark. Ex. 1033, 137–38. The applicant’s arguments, thus, do not support Patent Owner’s argument here that “workstations” should not be mounted “over or on top of the height adjustment mechanism.” See id.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,668 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,594,668 - Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01275 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Clark and Manner (claims 1–3, 5, 8) and Clark, Manner, and Hartman (claim 6).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 17–18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. at 18. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“i. “actuator” Petitioner contends in district court that the term “an actuator for controlling the driver” is indefinite for invoking means-plus-function claim language without providing corresponding structure. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1023, 36–40; Ex. 1024, 28–32). For the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner adopts the construction Patent Owner presented in the district court, i.e., “a mechanism to activate or control equipment, e.g., by use of pneumatic, hydraulic, or electronic signals.” Id. at 10 (quoting Ex. 1012, 3–4). Patent Owner does not address this term in this proceeding. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Because it is uncontested in this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s construction from the district court proceeding as presented here by Petitioner.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Although not dispositive to our Decision, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of this term, which does not require the work surface to be curved.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act of his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. We start our analysis with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “wherein the work platform includes a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism, in a forward direction . . . the compartment is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction.” Ex. 1001, 14:39–43. By reciting “a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism,” the claim language implies that the entire work platform is not required to project in the forward direction. We also note that nothing in claim 1 requires any particular size of the compartment. The only recitation in the claim regarding location of the compartment is that it “is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction,” but that language on its face does not require or suggest that the compartments are “entirely in” or only “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. In other words, nothing in the claims expressly restricts the compartments from being disposed in the “portion” recited as well as another portion of the work platform that does not project in the forward direction. Turning to the Specification, Patent Owner does not direct us to any” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,215,650 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,215,650 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01114 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 2, 27–30, 32–36, 38, 40, 42–44, 46, 47, 52, 54, 57, and 59, exercising discretion because this was the fourth-ranked parallel petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“petition is warranted given the number of claims at issue. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (identifying situations where “two petitions . . . may be needed”). Patent Owner has asserted 166 claims in the co-pending district court litigation, and Petitioner challenges 91 unique claims in these petitions. See Ranking Notice 2; Ranking Response 2. Also, the vast majority of the challenged claims are asserted in litigation. See Ranking Response 2; Ex. 2004, 3. As a result, we agree that this is the type of “rare” situation where multiple parallel petitions are necessary. Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot justify a large number of petitions by claiming that it needed additional words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise. 10 A petitioner is not entitled to an unlimited number of petitions (see Trial Practice Guide 59–61); instead, we determine whether the circumstances justify additional petitions (see id. at 59–60). This approach conforms with the rationale behind imposing a word count limit on petitions. See id. at 39 (discussing the reasons for establishing word count limits and urging parties to present “concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.”). i.e., the analysis of claim 2, the summary of the ’754 patent and prior art, the articulation of the level of skill in the art and claim construction, and the other preliminary comments—and we are not persuaded that they are sufficiently concise to support Petitioner’s argument. Claim 2 is only fifteen lines long, and its technology is relatively simple, yet Petitioner’s analysis of this claim stretches for seventeen pages. See Pet. 24–41. Petitioner provides no general information about the technology and submits that no claims need to be construed (id. at 7), yet Petitioner provides a five-page summary of the ’754 patent and its prosecution history (see id. at 2–6). Also, Petitioner provides a twelve-page summary of Ahn and Chaudhri (see id. at 7–19), despite the fact that neither reference is particularly long. Indeed, as Patent Owner notes, Petitioner was able to remove nearly 1,000 words from these common sections in at least one of the petitions. See Ranking Response 3–4. Because Petitioner’s analysis in the common sections does not appear to be concise, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s use of approximately 8,350 words in those sections justifies the large number of petitions.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754
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.