- Røde Microphones, LLC / Freedman Electronics Pty Ltd. v. Zaxcom, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 30, 2025 · IPR2025-00557 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Strub teaches or suggests “a remote receiver, the remote receiver configured to create at least one master timecode and to receive audio data,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Strub and Woo.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the “master timecode generator” produces a signal that “controls” another timecode generator. See Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing a dictionary definition of “master” as “[one] that has control over another or others,” Ex. 2019, 3). We see no basis, however, to limit the claim term to a particular type of control. Patent Owner points to Figure 6 of the ’444 patent where “the master timecode generator creates master timecodes that are used to control the speed of the local timecode generator to ensure the two timecode generators are synchronized.” See Prelim. Resp. 19‒20 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 9‒16, Fig. 6). But Figure 6 merely depicts an exemplary “process for recording audio and for replaying and re-recording segments of missed audio in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.” See Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 15‒17. Further, the Specification describes the exemplary embodiment of Figure 6 as a master unit providing master timecodes to a local audio device, which “synchronizes (e.g., jam syncs) its respective on board local timecode generator with the master timecodes,” but does not specify exactly how the master unit exercises control. Id. at col. 17, ll. 9‒17. Thus, we do not include any particular control mechanism (e.g., changing the speed of the local timecode generator) in our interpretation at this time. Based on the record presented, we interpret “master timecode generator” as “a producer of a master time reference signal that controls at least one other timecode generator” and “master timecode” as “a time reference signal used to synchronize at least one device.”” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Strub teaches or suggests limitation 1[A]. Petitioner relies on Strub’s disclosure of a “master” recording unit as the claimed “remote receiver.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 38, ll. 29‒39). The cited portion of Strub is reproduced below: Data other than recording data can also be exchanged between recording units. For example, it may be desirable to coordinate the recordings obtained by recording units so that frames of visual recording data obtained by different recording units are temporally synchronized (e.g., so that a frame begins at the same time for each recording unit). This can be done by transmitting a synchronization pulse from a “master” recording unit to each of the other recording units (“slave” recording units). (Synchronizing analog visual data acquisition devices in this way is referred to as “genlocking.”) Ex. 1003, col. 38, ll. 29‒39. As argued by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 36), the cited procedure involves synchronizing frames of visual recording data, not audio recording data. Petitioner has not disputed Patent Owner’s assertions that the described “genlocking” technique is a video synchronization technique that does not apply to or affect the synchronization of system clocks or audio timestamps and has no bearing on audio synchronization. Nor does Petitioner explain in the Petition or the Preliminary Reply how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have applied this teaching to audio data recorded by an audio device. Petitioner cites this visual recording data synchronization passage as a solution to a problem that Strub identifies in clocks not being adequately synchronized to enable use of time-stamps associated with recordings to be used to synchronize the recordings. See Prelim. Reply 1‒2 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 38, ll. 29‒37, col. 79, l. 63‒col. 80, l. 2). However, immediately following the cited portion that identifies this problem, Strub further explains that “[i]f recording units according to the invention each include a GPS receiver, such mis-synchronization will only exist to an appreciable degree if one or more recording units are shielded from a GPS transmitter system for an extended period of time, e.g., several hours.” Ex. 1003, col. 80, ll. 2–27. Thus, Strub suggests that the solution to this problem is for the recording units to receive their timecodes not from a master recording unit, as argued by Petitioner, but from a GPS satellite.4 Petitioner does not address this teaching.” slip op. at 22
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not rely on Woo as teaching or suggesting limitation 1[A]; Petitioner relies solely on the teachings of Strub. See Pet. 33–35 (arguing that “Strub teaches this element”). Petitioner references Strub’s teachings as being “consistent with and reinforced by the Woo reference” in the Preliminary Reply (Prelim. Reply 2), but this is not sufficient to rely on Woo, alone or in combination with Strub, as teaching this limitation. We also agree that the Lectrosonics IPRs’ findings regarding Woo teaching the “master timecode generator” limitation recited in those challenged claims are inapplicable here, where claim 1 recites additional limitations not present in those challenged claims. Compare Ex. 1001, col. 43, ll. 26‒27 (claim 1 of the ’444 patent: “a remote receiver, the remote receiver configured to create at least one master timecode and to receive audio data”) with Ex. 1028, col. 23, ll. 20‒21 (claim 1 of the ’814 patent: “at least one master timecode generator for generating a plurality of master timecodes”) and Ex. 1030, col. 23, ll. 38‒39 (claim 1 of the ’902 patent: “at least one master timecode generator for generating a plurality of master timecodes”). Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Strub teaches or suggests “a remote receiver, the remote receiver configured to create at least one master timecode and to receive audio data,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Strub and Woo.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,051,444 - PTAB · Aug 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00479 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were obvious over Erskine, Scherzer, or Scherzer and Gillett.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“III. CONCLUSION Based on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’634 patent challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’634 patent (July 2018), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a similar major with at least two years of experience in the field; or a master’s degree with specialization in the field,” where “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–13). Petitioner further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had knowledge of “[d]esigning and using systems that include endpoint devices (e.g., client devices) and servers for establishing network connections and data transfer,” “[r]ecognizing and applying the client-server architecture,” and “[u]sing and applying concepts from known telecommunication and networking frameworks, protocols and standards, including TCP/IP, IEEE 802.11, VoIP, cellular systems and other known frameworks and standards.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 14). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’634 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’634 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 4–29 (describing in the “Background” section of the ’634 patent a “network connection between two endpoints” and known methods of reaching “full effective bandwidth capacity” in a network).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner notes that it proposed a construction for the claim term “geographical area” in the district court case, but states that it “do[es] not believe proposing a construction for the term is necessary in this proceeding because the relied upon teachings of the prior art references are consistent with examples of ‘geographical area’ included in the ’634 patent [S]pecification.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Board need not engage in express claim construction at this stage of the proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 5. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Erskine teaches or suggests the second requirement of limitation [1c], i.e., “initiating the next network connection . . . with a transmission bandwidth based on the parameter values for the past network connection.” Petitioner’s theory is that (1) the QoS parameters in Erskine are for a “past” connection from one zone to another, (2) the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth is “based on” the QoS parameters, and (3) a new call only proceeds if the transmission bandwidth needed for the call added to the current bandwidth being used over the interzone link is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth, so Erskine therefore teaches a call with a transmission bandwidth determined “based on” the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth (which in turn is determined “based on” the QoS parameters). See Pet. 27–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–60 (similar testimony from Dr. Crovella). As Patent Owner points out, however, Erskine only makes “a binary, accept/reject decision as to whether to allow a new call to proceed based on a comparison between the bandwidth needed for the call and a predetermined ‘sliding maximum interzone bandwidth value.’” See Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Specifically, the additional bandwidth that would be needed for the call is added to the current bandwidth being used on the interzone link; if the sum of those values is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth for the link, the call “proceeds”; otherwise, it is “blocked.” Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 36–40, col. 6, l. 55–col. 7, l. 10, col. 8, ll. 36–43, col. 9, ll. 9–26, col. 10, ll. 23–25 (the sum is compared to the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth “to determine whether enough bandwidth is available to proceed with the new call”), Fig. 3 (steps 308, 310, and 312). Erskine repeatedly refers to the bandwidth for the new call as the amount of bandwidth that is “necessary” or “required” to handle the call. See, e.g., id. at col. 1, ll. 43–57 (“an amount of bandwidth necessary to handle the new call”), col. 6, ll. 61–64 (“the additional bandwidth required (of the new call)”), col. 8, ll. 36–40 (“the bandwidth necessary for the new call”), col. 9, ll. 16–21 (“the anticipated additional bandwidth necessary for the new call”), 54–56 (“the bandwidth amount the new call will utilize (if connected)”), col. 10, ll. 21–23 (same), 41–43 (same), col. 12, ll. 1–2 (“an amount of bandwidth necessary to handle the new call”). It is that value—determined prior to the addition and comparison to the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth—that will be used for the new call if it is allowed to “proceed[].” Id. at col. 6, ll. 64–67 (if the sum is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth, the call “proceeds” and “the QoS table is updated with the additional bandwidth used by that call”). Erskine does not describe the transmission bandwidth for the new call as being based on any parameter values for a past network connection, but rather as “whatever bandwidth the system determined is necessary for the additional call.” See Prelim. Resp. 8–9. In other words, the transmission bandwidth needed for a new call is predetermined and independent of whatever the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth is currently. See id.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,944,634 - PTAB · Aug 27, 2025 · IPR2025-00574 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–7 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on claim 1 over Choe and Workman.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For purposes of institution, we find sufficient Dr. Darrell’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choe and Workman because Workman discloses predictive models to identify the horizon line (Ex. 1003 ¶ 146), and additionally, because using Workman’s model to identify the horizon line would have been combining known elements (CNNs and annotation for camera calibration) according to known methods to yield predictable results and used known techniques (CNNs) to improve similar devices in the same way. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We find sufficient for institution Dr. Darrell’s testimony that because these models were well known, a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Choe and Workman to achieve the method of claim 1. Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We have reviewed Mr. Andrews’s testimony to the contrary (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 71–80) but, at this stage, do not find it persuasive. For example, to the extent Patent Owner and Mr. Andrews assert that Choe does not identify any “shortcomings” that would motivate a POSITA to look for a better approach like that of Workman (see Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 2003 ¶ 74), we note that it is “not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option,’” and “if 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. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we preliminarily agree that the combination of Choe and Workman teaches the subject matter of limitation [1B] sufficiently to meet Petitioner’s burden on institution.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“For purposes of institution, we find sufficient Dr. Darrell’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choe and Workman because Workman discloses predictive models to identify the horizon line (Ex. 1003 ¶ 146), and additionally, because using Workman’s model to identify the horizon line would have been combining known elements (CNNs and annotation for camera calibration) according to known methods to yield predictable results and used known techniques (CNNs) to improve similar devices in the same way. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We find sufficient for institution Dr. Darrell’s testimony that because these models were well known, a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Choe and Workman to achieve the method of claim 1. Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We have reviewed Mr. Andrews’s testimony to the contrary (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 71–80) but, at this stage, do not find it persuasive. For example, to the extent Patent Owner and Mr. Andrews assert that Choe does not identify any “shortcomings” that would motivate a POSITA to look for a better approach like that of Workman (see Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 2003 ¶ 74), we note that it is “not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option,’” and “if 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. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we preliminarily agree that the combination of Choe and Workman teaches the subject matter of limitation [1B] sufficiently to meet Petitioner’s burden on institution.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelOther
“would have had a Bachelor’s in Computer Science with a focus on computer/machine vision, and at least two years of experience with each of: (1) machine learning (including neural network) methods as applied to machine/computer vision and (2) classical machine/computer vision algorithms (e.g., edge detection, line identification, computation of camera parameters from horizon line, etc.)” and that additional education “could serve as a substitute for the experience requirement.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s definition and asserts that a POSITA “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science with one- or two-years training and/or experience in design of software for camera/sensor systems in the automotive industry.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2003 (Declaration of Scott Andrews) ¶ 35). We determine that no express finding is necessary, on the present record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by 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). The difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA’s work experience does not change our analysis or conclusions based on the present record. Should the parties continue to disagree regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art during trial, we encourage the parties to explain how an automotive-focused definition, or the lack thereof, would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision. B. slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyOther
“For purposes of institution, we find sufficient Dr. Darrell’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choe and Workman because Workman discloses predictive models to identify the horizon line (Ex. 1003 ¶ 146), and additionally, because using Workman’s model to identify the horizon line would have been combining known elements (CNNs and annotation for camera calibration) according to known methods to yield predictable results and used known techniques (CNNs) to improve similar devices in the same way. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We find sufficient for institution Dr. Darrell’s testimony that because these models were well known, a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Choe and Workman to achieve the method of claim 1. Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We have reviewed Mr. Andrews’s testimony to the contrary (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 71–80) but, at this stage, do not find it persuasive. For example, to the extent Patent Owner and Mr. Andrews assert that Choe does not identify any “shortcomings” that would motivate a POSITA to look for a better approach like that of Workman (see Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 2003 ¶ 74), we note that it is “not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option,’” and “if 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. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,875,580 - PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · PGR2025-00028 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–20 and all asserted grounds after finding claim 1 more likely than not unpatentable under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), the Director may not authorize a post-grant review unless the information in the petition, if unrebutted, “would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we institute a post-grant review as to claims 1–20 of the ’423 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art would have had “an educational background of, or practical experience equivalent to, a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or distributed network systems,” where “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–26). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’423 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’423 patent and cited 2 Petitioner states that it “takes no position on the proper priority date for the [c]hallenged [c]laims” and “uses the earliest possible priority date claimed, December 18, 2013,” for purposes of its asserted grounds. Pet. 14. prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:42–2:21 (stating that “[t]he present application relates to the field of payment processing systems” and describing the functionality of payment accepting units in the “Background” section).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Petitioner states that, “for purposes of [its] Petition, the Board need not construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes, and the claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner agrees that “[n]o constructions are necessary” to decide the issues disputed by the parties. Prelim. Resp. 2–3. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute a post-grant review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelNot reached
“For the reasons explained below, we conclude, on the merits and based on the current record, that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claim 1 is unpatentable as claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Pet. 77–84. Accordingly, we need not determine at this time whether collateral estoppel applies based on the Board’s decision in PGR2021-00093. The parties, however, should address the issue in their papers during trial, with citations to relevant authority. In particular, the parties are encouraged to address (1) how the collateral estoppel requirement that the issue be “identical to one decided in the first action” applies in the context of an asserted ground under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and (2) the parties’ apparent disagreement as to whether collateral estoppel may be applied in such circumstances on a “limitation-by-limitation basis.” See Pet. 72, 75 (quoting Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc., 54 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022)); Prelim. Resp. 20–21; see also Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., – F.4th –, No. 2023-1359, 2025 WL 2178321, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025) (Dyk, J., dissenting) (“In subsequent Board proceedings, it is well established that collateral estoppel applies to claims adjudicated by the Board to be unpatentable and also to ‘related claims that present identical issues of patentability,’ i.e., patentably indistinct claims. . . . ‘It is well established that patent claims need not be identical for collateral estoppel to apply.’” (citing MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Google, 54 F.4th at 1381)).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,972,423 - PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · PGR2025-00027 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding claim 1 more likely than not ineligible under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A. Legal Standards — Petitioner’s Burden In a post-grant review, “the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), which is identical to 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3) in requiring petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”). This 2 Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’920 patent “would have had an educational background of, or practical experience equivalent to, a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or distributed network systems.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–26. Further: “Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. generally. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’920 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’920 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:42–2:21 (stating “[t]he present application relates to the field of payment processing systems” and describing the functionality of payment accepting units in the “BACKGROUND” section).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues “the Board need not construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner argues: “No constructions are necessary to deny institution because denial is warranted for numerous reasons that do not depend on claim construction.” Prelim. Resp. 3. However, as discussed below, several of Patent Owner’s arguments seeking to distinguish claim 1 from Low rely on underlying claim construction positions. Except as discussed below in connection with those arguments, we determine no explicit construction is needed to resolve the parties’ controversy as to whether institution should be granted here. 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 12
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionInstituted
“We determine Petitioner has made a sufficient showing for Step 2A, Prong 1 based on the current record. Petitioner addresses each of limitations [1.2]–[1.14] and explains how they support Petitioner’s contention that the claim, as a whole, is directed to the alleged abstract idea. See Pet. 80–84. For example, Petitioner notes specifically how limitation [1.2], reciting “identifying one or more payment accepting units,” pertains to identifying a merchant, and how limitations [1.6], [1.7], and [1.9] recite user interaction using the mobile device that enables the completion of a purchase. See id. Petitioner thus shows sufficiently how claim 1, by virtue of the limitations reproduced above,5 recites the concept of “identifying a merchant and enabling completion of a purchase from the merchant.” Id. at 80.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,966,920 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00503 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations did not cure the failure to show the claimed request and routing steps.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’279 patent in January 2001 “would have had a working knowledge of the network communication technologies that are pertinent to the ’279 patent, including network flow allocation in a ring topology.” Pet. 12. More specifically, Petitioner argues, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a master’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to network communications and resource allocations,” where “[a]dditional work experience can substitute for specific educational background, and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner represents that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition” for the purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 5. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’279 patent, and, therefore, we likewise adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Neither party contends that any formal claim construction is necessary. See Pet. 12 (“Petitioner submits that, for the purposes of this proceeding and the grounds presented herein, no claim term requires express construction.”); PO Resp. 4 (“Here, at this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner will apply the ordinary and customary meaning to the ’279 Patent’s claim terms.”). Patent Owner notes, however, that Petitioner had asserted specific constructions in the Cisco litigation for the term “predetermined,” as recited in claims 1, 10, 14–16, and 18, and for the term “quantum.” PO Resp. 4. Specifically, according to Patent Owner, Petitioner proposed that “predetermined” be construed as “determined before the data flow request” and that “quantum” be construed as “an amount of a requested resource by which to increase or decrease.” Id. (citing Ex. 2007). Patent Owner contends asserted prior art combinations disclose or render obvious the challenged claims under these constructions. Id. Because our conclusion that Petitioner has not demonstrated that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable does not turn on the construction of either “predetermined” or “quantum,” there is no need for us to construe those terms. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 12
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We again are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. As an initial matter, we find no argument with respect to “best effort data traffic” or dropped packets in the Petition. See Tr. 12:10–21 (conceding that “the phrase ‘best effort’ was not in the Petition” but arguing that it was raised in response to the Patent Owner Response). Moreover, we are unable to identify any argument in the Patent Owner Response to which this line of argument is properly responsive, and Petitioner does not identify any such line of argument. Instead, Petitioner’s argument appears to advance belatedly a new theory. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 73–74, available at” slip op. at 43
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“We credit the supporting testimony of Dr. Olivier on the points discussed above, as it is explained sufficiently and consistent with the testimony simply mirrors the Petition and does not explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Kovvali in the manner Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 35; Reply 17–18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 83.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 7,035,279 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,035,279 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00505 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16–19, 21, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Gai under theory 1B; claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“patent, we look to “1) the types of problems encountered in the art; 2) the prior art solutions to those problems; 3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; 4) the sophistication of the technology; and 5) the educational level of active workers in the field.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 666–67 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate.” Id. at 667.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“The most common type of MAC bridge is a switch, which has multiple ports connecting it to LANs, other switches, host computing systems, or other network elements. Switches can be roughly classified as access switches or core switches. An access switch has ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems. Core switches interconnect the access switches into a Wide Area Network (WAN), by direct connection between the core switch and access switches and/or by connection to other core switches. Core switches that are directly connected to access switches are referred to herein as edge switches. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27–38. Both parties refer to this disclosure when arguing whether particular switches in the asserted prior art (Gai) qualify as an “access switch” or “edge switch.” See Pet. 5, 22, 27–28 (“edge switches are ‘[c]ore switches that are directly connected to access switches’”), 71; PO Resp. 31–32 (“The ’986 patent discloses that ‘[a]n access switch has ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints.’ . . . The ’986 patent also discloses that edge switches are ‘[c]ore switches that are directly connected to access switches.’”); Reply 20, 22. Dr. Houh and Dr. Olivier do so as well. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39, 66–67, 82–83, 166, 171, 193; Ex. 2001 ¶ 80. Based on the full trial record, we agree and conclude that the descriptions of “access switch” and “edge switch” in the ’986 patent reflect what was understood to be the plain and ordinary meanings of these terms at the time of the invention. Accordingly, we interpret “access switch” to mean a switch with ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems, and interpret “edge switch” to mean a core switch that is directly connected to an access switch.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“and conclude that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to designate switch 117 as the root switch when implementing the network reconfiguration method of Gai. The only mention of an access switch connected to port 7 of switch 114 is at column 13, lines 59–63 of Gai. While that sentence establishes that such an access switch may exist in the network, it does not state or imply that it would be the root switch. Instead, when discussing the operation of the Figure 1 network, Gai only identifies switches 120 and 121 as the root switch. See Ex. 1005, col. 10, ll. 37–41, col. 11, ll. 60–64, col. 14, ll. 16–20, col. 15, ll. 27–29, 38–51, col. 16, ll. 42–45. To be sure, Gai does disclose that “execution of the spanning tree algorithm causes the switches to elect a single switch, among all the switches within each network, to be the ‘root’ switch,” where “[e]ach switch has a unique numerical identifier (switch ID) and the root is the switch having the lowest switch ID numeric value,” such that an access switch can be the root switch if it has the lowest switch ID. See Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 42–47, col. 10, ll. 29–36. As Patent Owner and Dr. Olivier explain in detail, though, Gai expressly cautions against doing so. Gai discloses that [d]epending on the configuration of a given network, the location of the root can significantly affect the distance that messages must travel. For example, many networks include a plurality of switches designated as access switches that provide connectivity to LANs, end stations, etc., and a plurality of backbone switches that, in turn, interconnect the various access switches. If the root is located at an access switch and the principal server utilized by the end stations (i.e., clients) is coupled to a backbone switch, the average distance between end stations and the primary server may be quite high, resulting in inefficient network operation. In addition, the backbone switches may become partitioned as ports between them are blocked. Id. at col. 3, ll. 17–29; see also id. at col. 10, ll. 26–29 (the “location of the root may affect the average distance (i.e., the average number of hops) a message travels and/or cause undesirable partitioning of backbone switches”). Thus, the location of the root is not an unimportant consideration—it affects the distance messages must travel and can cause backbone switches to be partitioned. See id. Gai, therefore, discloses that “[t]o reduce the average distance and avoid partitioning of the backbone switches, it is desirable to locate the root at a backbone switch.”10 Id. at col. 3, ll. 29–31 (emphasis added). Switch 117 in Petitioner’s modified Figure 1 is an access switch, not a backbone switch. See id. at col. 6, ll. 10–12 (“Access switches are preferably coupled to entities (e.g., LANs, end stations, etc.) whereas backbone switches provide the interconnections between access switches.”).” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed
“We agree with Petitioner. For purposes of claim 1, which does not recite “downstream” communication of dummy traffic (unlike claims 11, 12, 23, and 24), the only modification to Figure 1 is the addition of switch 117 and server 112e—otherwise, in Petitioner’s analysis, Gai’s method operates exactly as described when a failure occurs at root port 3 of switch 114. See Pet. 69–73, 81–85; Tr. 47:20–48:2. That modification is expressly supported by Gai, which discloses the following: Rapid reconfiguration entity 234 similarly generates one or more separate multicast messages 400 for each remaining entity directly coupled to access switch 114 (i.e., entities or end stations on LANs 102–104). In each message 400, entity 234 loads SA field 414 with the address of the corresponding entity. Each of these messages are similarly forwarded by access switch 114 through the new forwarding port (i.e., port number four). In addition, entity 234 generates and transmits one or more multicast messages 400 for entities reachable through switch 114 on ports other than its root port. For example, if port number seven at switch 114 were coupled to another access switch, entity 234 would transmit multicast messages 400 carrying the source address of entities directly coupled to this additional access switch as well. Thus, at least one multicast message 400 is generated and transmitted for each entity directly coupled to or downstream of access switch 114 (relative to the root). As set forth above, upon receipt of these multicast messages 400, the other devices within network 100 update their corresponding filtering databases with the new destination ports, as necessary. Ex. 1005, col. 13, l. 50–col. 14, l. 3 (emphasis added). Gai thus expressly contemplates the addition of “another access switch” coupled to port 7 of switch 114. Switch 117 in the modified Figure 1 is such a switch. See PO Resp. 30 (Patent Owner arguing that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that switch 117 is an access switch”); Ex. 1018, 84:14–85:9 (Dr. Olivier agreeing that switch 117 is an “access switch”). And because an “access switch” has “ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems,” and the above disclosure mentions “entities directly coupled to th[e] additional access switch,” switch 117 would be directly connected to a device like server 112e as well. See Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 31–33; Ex. 1005, col. 13, ll. 59–63; supra Section II.B. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that Gai in its written description expressly discloses the particular “variation of the topology” of Figure 1 that Petitioner asserts. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 165. Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Gai to meet the claims.” PO Resp. 14–16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 47–49). Patent Owner’s arguments are primarily directed to Petitioner’s asserted modification for its “1A” theory. See id. To the extent Patent Owner’s arguments apply to claim 1 and “1B,” we disagree, as Gai expressly describes the asserted modification to Figure 1 (i.e., adding an access switch connected to port 7 of switch 114). Thus, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the method of claim 1 based on Gai’s full disclosure.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,917,986 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,917,986 - PTAB · Jun 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00232 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 17–19, 21–23, 33, 34, 59, 60, and 66 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 17 is obvious over Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“final written decision in this proceeding would be in June 2026. There is no trial date set in the district court case. See Ex. 1031, 3. Therefore, we find that factor 2 weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“preliminary responses, decisions on institution,3 and various exhibits filed in the Lectrosonics IPRs. See Prelim. Resp. 21; Ex. 2027, 10–16. The examiner subsequently signed the IDS with the footnote “ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT WHERE LINED THROUGH.” Ex. 2028, 6–12. Further, the petitioner in IPR2018-01130, for example, asserted that the challenged claims were unpatentable over various combinations of Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner, and the petition, preliminary response, and decision on institution from that proceeding were provided to the examiner. See Ex. 1018, 5–6 (listing the asserted grounds); Ex. 1021, 7–8 (same); Ex. 2027, 14–15. Accordingly, the same art previously was presented to the Office.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review unless the information in the petition and 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.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 17–19, 21–23, 33, 34, 59, 60, and 66 of the ’207 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“the Board applied the BRI standard to the claims challenged in the Lectrosonics IPRs, so no claim interpretation was ever rendered under the Phillips standard and “issues regarding obviousness, which rely on such claim constructions, have also not been litigated.” Prelim. Resp. 22–24 (citing SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. Deca Int’l Corp., 828 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Patent Owner argues that “[w]here a first IPR is decided under the BRI standard, and a second IPR concerning the same patent is to be decided under the Phillips standard, ‘collateral estoppel . . . is not appropriate.’” Id. at 23 (citing Ebates Performance Mktg., Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., IPR2022-00646, Paper 56 at 10 (PTAB Oct. 11, 2023)). We agree with Patent Owner based on the current record. Although the Lectrosonics IPRs involved patents from the same family as the ’207 patent, which recite many similar claim limitations, the Lectrosonics IPRs were all decided using the BRI standard, not the Phillips standard. Thus, no claim interpretation has been made using the standard that will be applied in this case, and the asserted prior art has not been applied to claims interpreted according to the standard in this case. Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded that collateral estoppel applies to any of the disputed issues in this proceeding. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC, 122 F.4th 911, 918–919 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“‘Because the Board applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the district courts apply a different standard of claim construction as explored in Phillips,’ a party is not collaterally estopped in district court proceedings by the Board’s constructions during IPR.”); SkyHawke, 828 F.3d at 1376. Regardless, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground as to claim 17 based on the preliminary claim interpretations applied herein. See supra Section II.E.” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,276,207 - PTAB · Jun 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00231 · APJ Matthew J Mcneill · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 9, 10, 13, and 16–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“following factors to assess “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding”: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). In evaluating these factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot reached
“Pursuant to our authorization provided by email (Ex. 3003), Patent Owner filed a motion to terminate on the basis that the Petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Papers 15 (confidential), 16 (public redacted). Petitioner filed its response on June 5, 2025. Paper 20. The parties’ briefing did not permit sufficient time to decide the motion prior to the three-month statutory deadline for determining whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b). We express no opinion at this time on Patent Owner’s motion to terminate, which will be decided in due course.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review unless the information in the petition and 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.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–6, 9, 10, 13, and 16‒20 of the ’902 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted with respect to those claims in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner based on the current record. Although the Lectrosonics IPRs involved the ’902 patent and other patents from the same family as the ’902 patent, which recite many similar claim limitations, the Lectrosonics IPRs were all decided using the BRI standard, not the Phillips standard. Thus, no claim interpretation has been made using the standard that will be applied in this case, and the asserted prior art has not been applied to claims interpreted according to the standard in this case. Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded that collateral estoppel applies to any of the disputed issues in this proceeding. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC, 122 F.4th 911, 918–919 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“‘Because the Board applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the district courts apply a different standard of claim construction as explored in Phillips,’ a party is not collaterally estopped in district court proceedings by the Board’s constructions during IPR.”); SkyHawke, 828 F.3d at 1376. Regardless, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground as to claim 1 based on the preliminary claim interpretations applied herein. See infra Section II.E.5.h.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,929,902 - PTAB · Jun 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00230 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–9, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22–27 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Paper 8 at 20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 58 & n.2, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. We consider the following factors to assess “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding”: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). In evaluating these factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review unless the information in the petition and 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.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–4, 7‒9, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22‒27 of the ’443 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted with respect to those claims in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We conclude that interpretation of the term “wearable” is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. Patent Owner argues that the ’443 patent describes wearability of local audio devices and requires the local audio device to include an audio input device, such as a microphone, that is worn by the performer and connects to the performer’s local audio device to capture the performer’s isolated audio track. Prelim. Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, code (57), col. 7, l. 65‒col. 8, l. 4, col. 8, ll. 59‒62, col. 21, ll. 60‒61). Patent Owner further argues that the prosecution history of the ’443 patent “clarifies that ‘wearable’ requires the audio device to be ‘suitable to be worn by the performer’ and excludes devices that are merely portable (e.g., able to be carried in a backpack).” Prelim. Resp. 24. Patent Owner argues that the Notice of Allowance for the ’443 patent distinguishes 5 In the district court case, Petitioner argued that “wearable” means “suitable and in a condition to be worn” and Patent Owner argued that the term means “[s]uitable to be worn by a performer.” See Ex. 2006, 13–14. between “portable” and “wearable” where the prior art of record taught a portable device that could be carried in a backpack, which the Examiner found did not teach a “wearable” limitation of the claims at issue. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 2017). We agree with Patent Owner’s analysis to the extent it specifies that the audio device is “suitable to be worn,” but do not include “performer” in the interpretation, as claim 1 recites an audio device wearable by a “creator of said locally generated audio.” See Prelim. Resp. 24‒25. Based on the current record, we interpret “wearable” as “suitable and in a condition to be worn.”” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We conclude that no express interpretation of “locally generated audio” is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review because, even if Patent Owner’s interpretation is adopted, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Strub teaches “locally generated audio.” See infra Section II.E.5.c; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)). The parties, however, are encouraged to address interpretation of the phrase during trial.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,711,443
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.