- PTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01090 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 21, 29–31, 42–44, 54, and 62–65 based on the §103 combination of Blumenberg, Bhumkar, and Griffin.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Patent Owner may bear a burden of production, however, to show that the Challenged Claims are entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date. Id. at 1379–80.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“On this record, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that the claim limitations amount to a combination of known elements that a POSITA could have combined to achieve predictable results. See Intel, 21 F.4th at 799–800 (determining that a showing of the obviousness in predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option). Among other reasons, the preliminary record supports Petitioner’s arguments that combining the teachings of Blumenberg, Bhumkar, and Griffin amounts to applying known solutions in the field of computer interfaces with predictable outcomes. See Pet. 12–18. As noted above, we encourage the parties to address the scope and meaning of the “when” limitations as a matter of claim interpretation, but we do not currently understand the plain language of Limitation [1.o] to require that the “portion of the second web page” or “menu” is displayed only after expiration of the “second user-configurable predefined duration,” termed by Patent Owner the “Alternative Modification.” Again, we encourage the parties to fully address this issue as a matter of claim construction. We additionally note that, even if we were to interpret the claims to require that the recited functions of Limitation [1.o] occur only the “prerequisite elements” are satisfied, we are still preliminarily persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that combined teachings of the prior art satisfy the claim elements as a mere combination of known elements combined according to their known functions with predictable results.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“scenarios. Pet. 1 (characterizing three claimed scenarios as (i) an “inadvertent” contact, (ii) a “tap” contact, and (iii) a “hold” contact), 4 (“Independent Claims 1 and 42 outline three scenarios regarding a user’s contact with a touch screen device”); Prelim. Resp. 3 (“With respect to claim 1, these three scenarios include: . . . .”); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28 (“As recited in claim 1, the three different claimed functionalities are executed ‘when’ the prerequisite elements are met (described as three scenarios by Dr. Cockburn.”) (citing Ex. 1001, 102:50–103:55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–35), 29–32 (describing the first, second, and third scenarios). In substance, the parties’ dispute appears to concern whether the plain language of the claims requires that a recited function must be performed only after or in response to expiration of a threshold (and other prerequisites), as opposed to requiring a function that begins before and continues after expiration of a threshold. Notably, dependent claim 3 recites: “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is configured such that the first feedback that is perceptible by touch is output prior to the display of the menu.” Ex. 1001, 104:1–4 (emphasis added). Given that independent claim 1 is necessarily broad enough to include claim 3, it seems on this record that the functions recited in Limitation [1.o] necessarily can happen at different times, as opposed to, for example, only responses that are triggered by the so-called “prerequisite elements.” We encourage the parties to address this issue as a matter of claim interpretation in future briefing. Based on the current record, however, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,725,581 - PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01089 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 9–11, 13–16, and 56–64 and 84, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the Petition “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.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The portion of the definition proposed by the Petitioner requiring “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers” (Pet. 6) appears to be consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’212 patent and prior art of record and is supported by declarant testimony. We adopt this as the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this Decision. We note that since it is unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition is considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree” we do not adopt the portion of the definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for a degree at this time. Additionally, we do not herein adopt Petitioner’s proposed additional requirement that one of ordinary skill “would have possessed extensive background knowledge and understanding of the pertinent technologies employed by the ’212 patent.” Pet. 7.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“First, we determine, on the present record, that Petitioner has not improperly combined embodiments of Hotelling. Petitioner sufficiently shows that Hotelling describes a device which is “designed to recognize touch gestures applied to a touch screen” and which “recognizes the occurrence of gestures” and informs associated software agents of “the ¶ 135 (cited at Pet. 9, 24, 35). While Hotelling’s disclosed example of a touch vocabulary relates to the music player embodiment (Ex. 1004 ¶ 151, Figs. 27A–E), Hotelling generally teaches “[a] hand-held electronic device . . . designed to recognize touch gestures applied to a touch screen” and which upon receipt of gestures “executes instructions to carry out operations associated with the gestures.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 135 (cited at Pet. 8, 9, 24, 35). After considering Hotelling and the parties’ arguments and testimony, we determine that, on the present record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Hotelling’s general teachings regarding gestures received on a touch screen includes the recognition of touch gestures (pressing a button, sliding a finger or stylus, moving the entire device spatially) while Hotelling’s main page is being displayed. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 84, 85, 87; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–66. While we agree that the “touch vocabulary” provided in the “example” of Figures 27A-E (see Ex. 1004 ¶ 151) relates to a music player, we do not, on the present record, determine that Hotelling limits its disclosed recognition of touch gestures and execution of instructions to carry out operations associated with the gestures (including via a touch vocabulary) as relating only to the music player or to the other specific functionalities of the device, rather than to all user input GUIs.” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,671,212 - PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01088 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on its § 103 challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the Petition “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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’758 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 7 (internal citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–53). For the purposes of institution, Patent Owner did not dispute this level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 6 (“Patent Owner does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.”) The portion of the definition proposed by the Petitioner requiring “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers” appears to be consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’758 patent and prior art of record and is supported by declarant testimony. We adopt this as the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this Decision. We note that since it is unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition is considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree” we do not adopt the portion of the definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for a degree at this time. Additionally, we do not herein adopt Petitioner’s proposed additional requirement that one of ordinary skill “would have possessed extensive background knowledge and understanding of the pertinent technologies employed by the ’758 patent.” Pet. 7.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner also notes that in the pending District Court Litigation, Petitioner contends that eight claim terms found in the challenged claims are indefinite: “performing an operation [in connection with / on] the first application icon,” “application-launch criteria,” “action-option-display criteria,” “operation criteria,” “movement criteria,” “action options,” “action option objects,” and “evaluating the first single-finger touch input against at least one of a plurality of criteria, including evaluating a duration of the first single-finger touch input against at least one of: one or more application-launch criteria, one or more action-option-display criteria, or one or more operation criteria, and further including evaluating a movement of the first single-finger touch input against one or more movement criteria.” Prelim. Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003, 9–75). Patent Owner further notes that, contrary to its position in the pending District Court Litigation, Petitioner does not assert that any of these terms are indefinite in this proceeding. Id. For institution and on our present record, we determine that none of these claim terms require construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). 3. Other Terms For institution and on our present record, no other claim terms require construction. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We determine that, on this record and for the purposes of institution, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing regarding motivation for its proposed combination of Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin. For the combination of Chaudhri and Martyn, we determine, on the present record and for the purposes of institution, that Petitioner has sufficiently shown support for the use of Martyn’s snap-shot menu with Chaudhri’s user interface. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s declarant’s examples of instances in which devices that incorporated “popular user interface features . . . did not achieve the same level of success because of poorly articulated design implementation.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 127 (cited at PO Resp. 23). However, on the present record, this evidence does not specifically address whether one of ordinary skill would have found such examples significant enough or relevant enough to the proposed combination to dissuade one of ordinary skill from considering such a combination to be reasonably likely to succeed, especially in light of the testimonial evidence before us that similar menus were often incorporated into GUIs similar to Chaudhri’s, which is adequately supported by reference to numerous examples. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–48, 64–65 (cited at Pet. 16). Additionally, we find compelling that Chaudhri describes a pop-up dialogue sub-menu for a different purpose (modifying the user interface object). See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 274, 317, Figure 5LLL; Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. On the present record, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the use of the similar snap-shot menu from Martyn (offering different functionality) to be further prompted by this sub-menu, and not to have been redundant or “already solved” in Chaudhri, as Patent Owner argues (PO Resp. 26–27). See Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. introduced to the combination of Chaudhri and Martyn to address a conflict that arises because Petitioner proposes a combination of Chaudhri and Martyn that “create[s] a conflict of assigning two functions to the same gesture.” PO Resp. 20. However, Petitioner provides a number of rationales to combine, and Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill would have sought details from Griffin to implement Chaudhri’s teachings describing different user functionality being launched by user touches of different user durations (Pet. 19–21) adequately supports the use of the material from Griffin in the proposed combination. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 217, 218; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–73, 75; see also PO Resp. 24 (describing “multiple types of gestures” used Chaudhri). While the proposed combination of Chaudhri and Martyn would, as Petitioner asserts, result in “three distinct operations invoked by duration-based touch gestures at an application icon” (Pet. 21), two of these distinct operations are found in Chaudhri’s teachings, and thus, on the present record, the motivation to look to Griffin does not arise only from the proposed combination of Chaudhri with Martyn. On the present record and for the purposes of institution, we determine that Petitioner has adequately shown that one of ordinary skill would have looked to Griffin to supply additional information regarding implementation of Chaudhri’s (and the Chaudhri and Martyn combination’s) use of parameters of a user’s touch, including duration, to enable different functionalities. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 40, 53, Fig. 7; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–73, 75. With respect to the use of the “press-and-hold” feature from Martyn, rather than other possibilities from Martyn for triggering its snap-shot menu and rather than adding a second touch point as Patent Owner suggests (PO Resp. 27–28, 32, 33 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 142–143, 156, 166, 172–173)), on to have been a suitable option. Pet. 15–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63–64; Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (determining that a showing of the obviousness in “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions” (as per KSR, 550 U.S. at 417) requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option, rather than a showing that it is the best option).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,656,758 - PTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01087 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13, 15–35, and 37–43 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We determine Petitioner’s showing discussed above regarding Limitations [1.i–1.l] to be sufficient for institution. Petitioner’s showing in large measure relies on Hackborn’s straightforward description of changing the appearance of grass displayed in “live” wallpaper in response to a finger swipe in combination with Westerman’s disclosures of interpreting user input on touch screens as swipes. See, e.g., Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 33; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 18–19. With regard to the contested Limitations [1.i and 1.k], we note particularly that Petitioner’s combination relies on Westerman’s disclosure of interpreting user inputs that exceed various thresholds as “a swipe event.” This showing is sufficient for institution to show the threshold determination required by Limitation [1.j]. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19; Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 19). Petitioner’s combination relies on Hackborn’s animation of the grass on the wallpaper “that makes the grass blades look as if the finger is actually contacting them as it drags across the screen of the device.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 33; see Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 33). On this preliminary record, Petitioner’s position that “the farther the swipe, the more extreme the grass movement expected from Hackborn” naturally follows from Hackborn’s description. Pet. 23. As such, we determine Petitioner’s showing that the proposed combination of Hackborn and Westerman changes the grass appearance based at least in part of the magnitude of the swipe to be sufficient for institution for Limitation [1.k].” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a related field, and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 9 n.2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26); Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Dr. Cockburn also indicates that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 26.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage, we agree with the parties that no terms need to be construed expressly. We discuss claim interpretation to the extent necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Hackborn’s mobile device with a touch screen able to display “live” wallpaper and Westerman’s techniques for interpreting swipe gesture inputs, including distinguishing between tap and swipe gestures using predetermined thresholds. Pet. 9–11, 12–13; see Pet. 9–14 (describing Petitioner’s “Hackborn-Westerman Combination”). Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA reviewing Hackborn would have naturally looked to Westerman to better understand how to implement Hackborn’s teachings, for example, how to discern between different user inputs (e.g., tap or swipe).” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner Petitioner proposes. Pet. 13–14. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that, because “recognizing predetermined touch inputs was known, and Hackborn and Westerman both describe the use of touchscreen devices and would have reasonably understood the combination of Hackborn and Westerman to be successful with no unexpected results.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53; Ex. 1004 ¶ 28, Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 18, 19, 25, 41, 59, 61–64).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,656,755 - PTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01091 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 27, 30, 32, 34, 59, 62, and 64 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d. Conclusion Regarding Asserted Obviousness over Kim In sum, for the reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s showing regarding claim 1 is sufficient for institution. Accordingly, having reviewed the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence cited therein, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Kim renders obvious claim 1. As such, Petitioner’s showing is sufficient to institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”); see SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Notwithstanding, we address other claims and other grounds below, particularly in response to Patent Owner’s preliminary arguments.” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a related field, and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 10 n.4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26); Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Dr. Cockburn also indicates that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner indicates it “does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Dr. Surati indicates that his opinions provided in his declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are “provided from the perspective of the POSITA” proposed by Dr.Cockburn. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). consistent with the prior art of record. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“standards for finding lexicography in a specification are exacting. Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning and must clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). As Patent Owner correctly notes, the specification states: In various embodiments, the contact pressure level may be represented by a touch state. In the context of the present description, a touch state refers to a predefined subset of the range of measurable contact pressures. For example, in one embodiment, contact pressure levels may be represented as one of four predefined touch states: no touch, light touch, medium touch, and heavy touch. Ex. 1001, 19:35–41; Prelim. Resp. 27 (quoting Ex. 1001, 19:35–41). Patent Owner, however, has not identified any words of manifest exclusion or restriction in that passage that indicate an intent to redefine the claim term. Rather than indicating the claims are to be restricted, the specification indicates how that the term “touch state” is to be understood in the descriptions presented in the specification. Ex. 1001, 19:36–37.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“would have been obvious over Kim and Bowens to be sufficient for institution. Petitioner generally relies on Kim’s description as discussed above. Pet. 62–68. Specifically, in its combination, Petitioner relies on Kim’s hold event and scaling operation for Limitations [1.g and 1.h]. Pet. 64–67. Petitioner additionally relies on Bowen as providing details on recognizing and acting on specific gestures on a user interface. See, e.g., Pet. 55. Petitioner provides reasons one of ordinary skill would have combined the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. See, e.g., Pet. 53–62. Petitioner also provides reasons one of ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 60–61.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,936,114 - PTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00981 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Kleve-based obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to determine whether to institute review. Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Therefore, pursuant to § 314, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 in the ’188 patent on all challenges included in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Examiner’s notation indicates that Zaid was considered. We do not agree, however, with Patent Owner’s position regarding Petitioner’s challenges based on Kleve. The challenges over Kleve alone or in combination with Sekiyama, Mottla, and/or Patenaude counsel us not to discretionarily deny institution. Patent Owner does not dispute that Kleve, Sekiyama, Mottla, and/or Patenaude were not before the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 15–24; Prelim. Sur-reply 5. Although Patent Owner characterizes the Petition’s challenges based on Kleve as an “attempt to end-run Section 325(d) by including additional grounds that lack merit” (Prelim. Resp. 23–24), we disagree. Rather, explained in detail below, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s challenges based on Kleve and it is the reason for institution. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s challenges based on Zaid are not relevant. As such, we determine any analysis under Advanced Bionics is inapplicable, and we do not exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution. b. Advanced Bionics Prong Two: whether “the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims” Because the Board is persuaded to instituted based on challenges not involving Zaid, , we will not consider the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the language in Petitioner’s stipulation does not eliminate completely any overlap with district court invalidity arguments. Petitioner’s stipulation allows Petitioner to use any prior art reference that is not relied on in the Petition. This may not fully address “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” See Fintiv, Paper 11 at 12. Nonetheless, Petitioner’s stipulation does decrease the overlap in issues and mitigates to a great degree the concerns regarding duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions. Additionally, we agree with Petitioner that the fact that the Petition challenges claims that are not asserted in the litigation weighs marginally in its favor. Based on the foregoing discussion, we determine that factor four weighs against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 22
- BurdenInstituted
“teaches, or at least suggests, that the user’s “request includes a condition of use of the vehicle as set by the user via the user account” because we are persuaded that the distribution of Kleve’s virtual e-key includes a rental period restriction. Specifically, we are persuaded by the Petition’s reliance on Kleve’s express disclosure that “terms and conditions for the rental period” are agreed to before the virtual key is generated. See Pet. 15 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 38). We preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Kleve describes an e-key that is only operable during a rental period because Kleve discloses “[t]he virtual key may also be sent to the vehicle configuring the VCS to enable the keyless drive system for the appropriate Temporary User during a given rental period.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 39; see Pet. 16. We note Patent Owner’s citations to Kleve’s Figures 2 and 5 that indicate control restrictions are added after the distribution of a virtual key. At this stage of the proceeding, however, based on the disclosure of Kleve we are persuaded the rental period would be included as a restriction when the virtual key is created at step 206 of Figure 2 prior to the distribution of the virtual key at 210. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38–39. At this stage, we credit the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, who opines that Kleve discloses that certain restrictions are sent with the request to generate a virtual key. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 118–123. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Kleve discloses that the virtual key “enable[s] the keyless drive system for the appropriate Temporary User during a given rental period.” restrictions were sent with the request so that the virtual key could be associated with said restrictions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39, 68 (“Once the rental period has expired the virtual key may be reset and cleared from the VCS.”)). Dr. Almeroth further testifies that the virtual key in Kleve is always generated after the rental agreement. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39, 68 (“[O]nce the Temporary User selects the vehicle, pays the appropriate amount and signs a consent agreement, then the system may generate a virtual key to distribute to the Temporary User and VCS.”)). Thus, after review of the arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner has provided adequate explanation and supporting evidence that Kleve teaches or suggests the challenged claim limitation.” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,365,188 - AT&T Services Inc. / T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Innovative Sonic Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00991 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground for claims 1–11.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing 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
“Patent Owner responds that “a person with the 3-year experience proposed by Petitioner would not have the intimate knowledge of the existing standardized cellular system” required to understand “how a proposed change would impact the rest of the system.” Prelim. Resp. 7. But Patent Owner also states that engineers participating in the development of the relevant cellular specifications “would not be expected to be familiar with all relevant aspects of the specifications” given their length and complexity. Id. at 7–8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above, because we are satisfied that it generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’883 patent and the asserted prior art. To the extent Patent Owner disagrees (see Prelim. Resp. 6–8), it fails to sufficiently explain its contrary position by, for example, providing its own proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “the Board does not need to expressly construe any terms” in this proceeding because “the prior art in this Petition discloses all limitations under any plausible construction.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner similarly states that “all terms are entitled to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 21. We agree with the parties that it is not necessary to construe any claim terms or phrases in 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.”) (cleaned up).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(step 406) discloses the claimed “second request” (Pet. 44–45),9 but Petitioner fails to show that this message discloses a request. See Prelim. Resp. 46–48. Han explains that the dual connection setup response in step 406 is a “dual connection setup request acknowledge (ACK)” message sent in response to “dual connection setup request” received in step 404. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 40–42; accord Pet. 42–44. An acknowledgement is not a request, and Petitioner fails to sufficiently support its contention to the contrary (see Pet. 44–45). According to Petitioner, the acknowledgement message is “a request to change a data path” because the data path is “change[d] . . . based on this message” (id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 42–47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 202)); however, this is faulty reasoning. At most, Petitioner’s argument shows that the acknowledgement is a message “to change a data 9 We note that this is the same message relied upon by Petitioner to teach the claimed “accept message” recited earlier in claim 1. Compare Pet. 44– 45, with id. at 43–44. We need not (and do not) decide whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown that this message discloses two separate claim elements. path,” not that it is a request to do so. In other words, even if Han’s acknowledgement message (in step 406) is a condition precedent to changing the data path, this does not make the message a “request.” Although Dr. Mahon agrees with Petitioner, his analysis mirrors Petitioner’s arguments and suffers from the same deficiencies. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 202– 203; see also Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An expert’s conclusory testimony, unsupported by the documentary evidence, cannot supplant the requirement of anticipatory disclosure in the prior art reference itself.”).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,736,883 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00919 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 would have been obvious over Leaning.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“The Board’s application of these factors “is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner.” Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 2, 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). “Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors,” and if the second petitioner and the first petitioner have a “significant relationship with respect to . . . [the challenged patent],” then the Board will consider the first petition in its General Plastic analysis. Id. at 9–10.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“2. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during Resp. 14, 16–17) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][2] (see Pet. 19–21) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4–6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Leaning is substantially the same as Leaning US, which was previously presented to the Office. b. Advanced Bionics Part Two To determine whether Petitioner has shown material error, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments,” and if that record “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f).” Id. As Petitioner notes (see Pet. 69), the record regarding the Office’s” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“On this record, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning teaches that each copy of the video is divided into sub-files that correspond to different temporal portions of the video. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:20– 28, 3:5–18, p.7 (table). We are also preliminarily persuaded Leaning teaches that each sub-file represents the same fixed time period (e.g., four seconds), and that each of Leaning’s sub-files has a corresponding sub-file in the other copies. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 6:21–7:2 (including table), 12:8–20. Moreover, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning’s sub-files each have a time index because the sub-file names are sequentially numbered. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 7:1–2, 12:16–20, p. 7 (table); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 73. Accordingly, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Leaning teaches elements 1[A][3], 1[A][4], and 1[A][5].8 1[B]: “requesting by the media player a plurality of sequential ones of the files of one of the copies from the set of servers over a plurality of Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indexes;” Petitioner contends that Leaning teaches and/or renders obvious element 1[B]. Pet. 29–35. According to Petitioner, Leaning teaches that terminal 3 requests a plurality of sequential sub-files of one of the copies from server 1. Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:12–19, 2:15–18, 5:4– 6:2, 6:27–7:2, 8:6–16, 23:3–10 (claim 1), 24:28–35 (claim 11), 25:17–20 (claim 16); Ex. 1003 ¶ 79; Pet. 21–29). Petitioner also asserts that an 8 Although we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative contention that element 1[A][5] would have been obvious over Leaning, we will evaluate that contention in our final written decision if appropriate.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,868,772 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00918 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 and 12–16 would have been obvious over Leaning.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“when there is an earlier petition challenging the same patent. See General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15–16. To determine whether to deny the subsequent petition, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors (the “General Plastic factors”): 1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; 2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it; 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; 4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; 5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; 6. the finite resources of the Board; and 7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review. Id. at 16.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“when a petition presents “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments [that] previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To evaluate whether such a denial is appropriate, the Board determines: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying this two-part Advanced Bionics framework, we evaluate several non-exclusive factors, including: 13 Like the parties, we focus our analysis on Leaning. See Pet. 67–69; Prelim. Resp. 14–22; Prelim. Reply 1–4; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–4. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s Leaning-only ground meets the standard for institution, and we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative ground based on Leaning and Gamble. See supra §§ II.E–F. Moreover, the statutory purpose of Section 325(d) would not be undermined by instituting on both challenges given Gamble’s limited role in Petitioner’s ground (see Pet. 58–60) and during prosecution (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, 208). art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which petitioner relies on the prior art or patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework (i.e., whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office), and factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to the second part (i.e., “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of the prior art or arguments). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during prosecution. See Pet. 67–68. We agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 14–17) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][3] (see Pet. 20–22) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4–6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Leaning is substantially the same as Leaning US, which was previously presented to the Office. b. Advanced Bionics Part Two To determine whether Petitioner has shown material error, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments,” and if that record “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f).” Id. consideration of Leaning US is nearly silent. Neither the applicants nor the examiner discussed Leaning US, and the examiner did not use it as a basis of any rejection. Rather, Leaning US was only cited on a twenty-five page Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) along with 237 other references. See Ex. 1002, 7–31. Given the volume of the applicants’ disclosure, it would not be surprising if the examiner overlooked material information in it. Because the Office’s evaluation of Leaning US was minimal, we find that factor (c) weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution. As for factors (e) and (f), Petitioner has shown that the Office erred by” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Motivation foundInstituted
“The legal question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,407,564 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00917 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on both asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“when there is an earlier petition challenging the same patent. See General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15–16. To determine whether to deny the subsequent petition, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors (the “General Plastic factors”): 1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; 2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it; 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; 4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; 6. the finite resources of the Board; and 7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review. Id. at 16.” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“when a petition presents “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments [that] previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To evaluate whether such a denial is appropriate, the Board determines: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially 14 Like the parties, we focus our analysis on Leaning. See Pet. 59–61; Prelim. Resp. 14–23; Prelim. Reply 1–4; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–4. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s Leaning-only ground meets the standard for institution, and we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative ground based on Leaning and Ala-Honkola. See supra §§ II.E–F. Moreover, the statutory purpose of Section 325(d) would not be undermined by instituting on both challenges given Ala-Honkola’s limited role in Petitioner’s ground (see Pet. 50–52) and during prosecution (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, 81–82). and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying this two-part Advanced Bionics framework, we evaluate several non-exclusive factors, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which petitioner relies on the prior art or patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework (i.e., whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office), and factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to the second part (i.e., “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. 2. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during prosecution of related, ancestor applications. See Pet. 60. We agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 14–15, 17–18) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][3] (see Pet. 20–22) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4– 6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19– 27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“On this record, the findings from the ITC Investigation regarding objective indicia do not undermine the sufficiency of Petitioner’s obviousness showing for purposes of institution. Our preliminary record includes no evidence of long-felt need, failure of others, unexpected results, commercial success, or industry praise. In addition, Patent Owner has not yet shown a nexus between any such evidence and the claimed invention. See Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“In order to accord substantial weight to secondary considerations in an obviousness analysis, the evidence of secondary considerations must have a nexus to the claims, i.e., there must be a legally and factually sufficient connection between the evidence and the patented invention.”); see also id. (“The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.”); ZUP, LLC patentee “bears the burden of production with respect to evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness”). Patent Owner will have the opportunity during the trial to present and develop arguments that objective indicia show that the challenged claims would not have been obvious, and our final written decision will be based on the full trial record.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,757,156
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.