- Ewald Dörken AG v. Schaeffler Technology AG & Co. KG.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 20, 2025 · IPR2024-01365 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all three obviousness grounds because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–7.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (permitting the Board to institute trial on behalf of the Director). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). For the reasons set forth below, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner contends that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have been a person having, as of 21 July 2017: (1) at least an undergraduate degree in engineering and/or material science, or similar education; and (2) two or more years of experience with coatings.” Pet. 7–8; see Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (providing the same level of ordinary skill). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 5. We apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’756 patent, based on our review of the record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits that . . . the claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not propose any specific constructions. See Prelim. Resp. 4–5.8 We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. 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.’” (emphasis added)) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent that the scope of any other claim term requires discussion, however, we provide it in our assessment of the challenges, which we turn to next. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–19. Petitioner provides no additional discussion on this disclosure, including how it satisfies the zinc flake coating limitation. See Pet. 15–17, 20. Petitioner’s sole citation to Dr. Haber’s declaration associated with this claim limitation is to paragraph 35, which provides the same claim chart as is in the Petition. See Pet. 17; Ex. 1009 ¶ 35.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,098,756 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01114 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 2, 27–30, 32–36, 38, 40, 42–44, 46, 47, 52, 54, 57, and 59, exercising discretion because this was the fourth-ranked parallel petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“petition is warranted given the number of claims at issue. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (identifying situations where “two petitions . . . may be needed”). Patent Owner has asserted 166 claims in the co-pending district court litigation, and Petitioner challenges 91 unique claims in these petitions. See Ranking Notice 2; Ranking Response 2. Also, the vast majority of the challenged claims are asserted in litigation. See Ranking Response 2; Ex. 2004, 3. As a result, we agree that this is the type of “rare” situation where multiple parallel petitions are necessary. Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot justify a large number of petitions by claiming that it needed additional words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise. 10 A petitioner is not entitled to an unlimited number of petitions (see Trial Practice Guide 59–61); instead, we determine whether the circumstances justify additional petitions (see id. at 59–60). This approach conforms with the rationale behind imposing a word count limit on petitions. See id. at 39 (discussing the reasons for establishing word count limits and urging parties to present “concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.”). i.e., the analysis of claim 2, the summary of the ’754 patent and prior art, the articulation of the level of skill in the art and claim construction, and the other preliminary comments—and we are not persuaded that they are sufficiently concise to support Petitioner’s argument. Claim 2 is only fifteen lines long, and its technology is relatively simple, yet Petitioner’s analysis of this claim stretches for seventeen pages. See Pet. 24–41. Petitioner provides no general information about the technology and submits that no claims need to be construed (id. at 7), yet Petitioner provides a five-page summary of the ’754 patent and its prosecution history (see id. at 2–6). Also, Petitioner provides a twelve-page summary of Ahn and Chaudhri (see id. at 7–19), despite the fact that neither reference is particularly long. Indeed, as Patent Owner notes, Petitioner was able to remove nearly 1,000 words from these common sections in at least one of the petitions. See Ranking Response 3–4. Because Petitioner’s analysis in the common sections does not appear to be concise, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s use of approximately 8,350 words in those sections justifies the large number of petitions.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01086 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 2, 8, 10, 16, 24, 26, and 224 because this petition ranked last among seven parallel petitions.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot justify a large number of petitions by claiming that it needed additional words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01118 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR2024-01118, finding seven parallel petitions unjustified and exercising discretion to deny this sixth-ranked petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot 12 A petitioner is not entitled to an unlimited number of petitions (see Trial Practice Guide 59–61); instead, we determine whether the circumstances justify additional petitions (see id. at 59–60). This approach conforms with the rationale behind imposing a word count limit on petitions. See id. at 39 (discussing the reasons for establishing word count limits and urging parties to present “concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.”). words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise. As a consequence, we reviewed the content of the common sections— i.e., the analysis of claim 2, the summary of the ’754 patent and prior art, the articulation of the level of skill in the art and claim construction, and the other preliminary comments—and we are not persuaded that they are sufficiently concise to support Petitioner’s argument. Claim 2 is only fifteen lines long, and its technology is relatively simple, yet Petitioner’s analysis of this claim stretches for seventeen pages. See Pet. 26–43. Petitioner provides no general information about the technology and submits that no claims need to be construed (id. at 8–9), yet Petitioner provides a six-page summary of the ’754 patent and its prosecution history (see id. at 3–8). Also, Petitioner provides a twelve-page summary of Ahn and Chaudhri (see id. at 9–21), despite the fact that neither reference is particularly long. Indeed, as Patent Owner notes, Petitioner was able to remove nearly 1,000 words from these common sections in at least one of the petitions. See Ranking Response 3–4. Because Petitioner’s analysis in the common sections does not appear to be concise, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s use of approximately 8,350 words in those sections justifies the large number of petitions.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - PTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01115 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“petition is warranted given the number of claims at issue. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (identifying situations where “two petitions . . . may be needed”). Patent Owner has asserted 166 claims in the co-pending district court litigation, and Petitioner challenges 91 unique claims in these petitions. See Ranking Notice 2; Ranking Response 2. Also, the vast majority of the challenged claims are asserted in litigation. See Ranking Response 2; Ex. 2004, 3. As a result, we agree that this is the type of “rare” situation where multiple parallel petitions are necessary. We do not agree, however, that seven petitions are justified.8” slip op. at 11
- 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’754 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented 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, human-computer interaction, 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 commensurate with the problems and solutions in the ’754 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 Petitioner’s proposed definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for “an advanced-level degree” at this time.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther
“We note that Petitioner presents arguments and evidence regarding “blur[ring] . . . at least a portion of” an object, as recited in independent object because of the display of a semitransparent foreground object would have been “a type of blurring”. Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 99:51–53; Ex. 1004 ¶ 70; Ex. 1009, 3, 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill would have understood “blur” to mean “make or become unclear or less distinct” and that the ’754 patent, in a dependent claim, recites that a blur “includes changing a translucency” of an overlaying object. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 99:51–53). Patent Owner does not address this contention. On the present record, Petitioner’s proposed construction appears correct and, for purposes of institution, we construe the blurring of an object as displaying that object with less detail. Otherwise, for institution and on the present record, we determine that none of the claim terms from the related litigation require construction, and neither do any other claim terms. 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)).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - PTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01116 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success for the Ahn and Chaudhri obviousness challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Petitioner, in its Ranking Notice, ranks this Petition second on its list of petitions filed challenging claims of the ’754 patent. Ranking Notice 1–2. Patent Owner agrees that “this may be one of the ‘rare’ situations that requires ‘two petitions.’” Ranking Response 1–2 (quoting PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”),5 59). Our complete analysis of this issue is provided in our decisions on institutions in other proceedings, such as IPR2024-01086. However, because Patent Owner does not argue against the institution of two petitions in this situation, and because this Petition is ranked second, we do not reproduce that analysis here.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown how Ahn teaches or suggests limitation 2.d of claim 2, and that the proposed combination of Ahn and Chaudhri teaches or suggests this limitation.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelOther
“The portion of the definition proposed by the Petitioner requiring a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, human-computer interaction, 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 commensurate with the problems and solutions in the ’754 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 years of experience for “an advanced-level degree” at this time.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“blur[ring] . . . at least a portion of” an object, as recited in independent claims 2 and 225, and argues that displaying less detail in a portion of a background object because of the display of a semitransparent foreground object would have been “a type of blurring”. Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 99:51–53; Ex. 1004 ¶ 70; Ex. 1009, 3, 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill would have understood “blur” to mean “make or become unclear or less distinct” and that the ’754 patent, in a dependent claim, recites that a blur “includes changing a translucency” of an overlaying object. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 99:51–53). Patent Owner does not address this contention. On the present record, Petitioner’s proposed construction appears correct and, for purposes of institution, we construe the blurring of an object as displaying that object with less detail. Otherwise, for institution and on the present record, we determine that none of the claim terms from the related litigation require construction, and neither do any other claim terms. 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 slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01117 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board discretionarily denied institution because this petition ranked fifth among seven parallel petitions challenging the patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“petition is warranted given the number of claims at issue. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (identifying situations where “two petitions . . . may be needed”). Patent Owner has asserted 166 claims in the co-pending district court litigation, and Petitioner challenges 91 unique claims in these petitions. See Ranking Notice 2; Ranking Response 2. Also, the vast majority of the challenged claims are asserted in litigation. See Ranking Response 2; Ex. 2004, 3. As a result, we agree that this is the type of “rare” situation where multiple parallel petitions are necessary. Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot justify a large number of petitions by claiming that it needed additional words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - PTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01119 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, and 208–216 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Ahn, Chaudhri, and Shiplacoff.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’754 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Petitioner, in its Ranking Notice, ranks this Petition first on its list of petitions filed challenging claims of the ’754 patent. Ranking Notice 1–2. Patent Owner agrees that “this may be one of the ‘rare’ situations that requires ‘two petitions.’” Ranking Response 1–2 (quoting PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”),6 59). Our complete analysis of this issue is provided in our decisions on institutions in other proceedings, such as IPR2024-01086. However, because Patent Owner does not argue against the institution of at least one petition in this situation, and because this Petition is ranked first, we do not reproduce that analysis here.” slip op. at 6
- 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, human-computer interaction, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers (Pet. 4) appears to be commensurate with the problems and solutions in the ’754 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 the portion of Petitioner’s proposed definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for “an advanced-level degree” at this time.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We note that Petitioner presents arguments and evidence regarding “blur[ring] . . . at least a portion of” an object, as recited in independent claims 1 and 2, and argues that displaying less detail in a portion of a background object because of the display of a semitransparent foreground object would have been “a type of blurring”. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1001, 99:51–53; Ex. 1004 ¶ 70; Ex. 1009, 3, 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill would have understood “blur” to mean “make or become unclear or less distinct” and that the ’754 patent, in a dependent claim, recites that a blur “includes changing a translucency” of an overlaying object. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 99:51–53). Patent Owner does not address this contention. On the present record, Petitioner’s proposed construction appears correct and, for purposes of institution, we construe the blurring of an object as displaying that object with less detail. Otherwise, for institution and on the present record, we determine that none of the claim terms from the related litigation require construction, and neither do any other claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (only those” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - Crusoe Energy Systems, LLC v. Upstream Data Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2025 · PGR2023-00039 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 24 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept; the petitioner did not prove the remaining challenged claims unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id. (citation omitted). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a degree in chemical engineering, petroleum engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field with 1–2 years of experience in designing power generation systems, Blockchain mining systems, or other comparable hands-on experience.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner adds that “[a]lternatively, a person having 3–5 years of experience in the Blockchain mining industry would also qualify as a POSITA” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, or vice versa.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We apply the same claim construction standard used in district court actions under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), namely that articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2024). In applying that standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“To address that “the mining processors are connected to the network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database,” as recited by limitation [1c_iii], Petitioner asserts that CryptoKube’s system includes “Bitcoin miners such as spondooliestech SP35 servers.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4). And, relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Kasdorf, Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that to mine Bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database, which is implemented as a public ledger distributed among many peer-to-peer devices connected to the Internet. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 108–109; Ex. 1010 ¶ 419). Mr. Kasdorf’s declaration testimony is nearly verbatim to the Petition and similarly provides no indication as to what in CryptoKube constitutes a “mining processor” other than his conclusory opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that to mine bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the 19 We note that Mr. Kasdorf’s reliance on Kheterpal is limited to Kheterpal’s background discussion regarding the Bitcoin protocol inasmuch as it “defines a system in which the creation and distribution of the bitcoin cryptocurrency is governed by consensus among a peer-to-peer network” and includes “a public ledger in which new transactions are verified and recorded by members of the network via cryptography.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 4. Ex. 1004 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 4). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that in the Petition, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Kasdorf explains or “cite[s] any evidence regarding which component is the ‘necessarily’ present mining processor (limitation 1[c_i]) or how this unspecified mining processor is ‘connected to the network interface and adapted to . . . communicate with the blockchain database’ (limitation 1[c_iii]).” PO Resp. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 104–105, 108–109).” slip op. at 21
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s contention that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation” (Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 21)) is an improper new argument. In determining whether an argument is a proper argument in reply, we look to see if the Reply argument is responsive to an argument from Patent Owner and expands on a position in the Petition. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[W]e have held that a reply may be proper if it is responsive and simply expands on previously raised arguments.”). Or, if Petitioner relies on previously unidentified disclosure “to make a meaningfully distinct contention.” Id. at 1383 (“[W]e held that a petitioner who asserted in its reply previously unidentified prior-art disclosures ‘to make a meaningfully distinct contention’ was impermissibly raising a new theory of unpatentability.”). We find that Petitioner’s argument in reply is closer to the later situation. Here Petitioner does not expand on a position from the Petition that Patent Owner criticizes based on the merits of the contentions. Rather, Petitioner supplements its conclusory assertion that a “mining processor” is necessarily present in CryptoKube’s spondooliestech SP35 servers (Pet. 23, 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4)) with its new assertion that that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation.” Pet. Reply 11. Petitioner does not purport to have presented this theory in the Petition. Id. Instead, Petitioner argues that this theory was properly raised in response to what Petitioner alleges to be an admission by” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 11,574,372 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,574,372 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-00993 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 15–17, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 3–6, 9, 14, and 19 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art [“POSITA”] at the critical time “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience related to electronic consumer product design [and the] POSITA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Patent Owner states that it would require experience with electro-mechanical control systems rather than electronic consumer product design. PO Resp. 3. Because Petitioner provides for “similar knowledge and experience through other means,” we do not discern any meaningful distinction. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“Determining whether a limitation that does not use the term “means” invokes § 112, paragraph 6, involves a three-part inquiry: (1) there is a generic placeholder that substitutes for the term “means”; (2) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language; and (3) the limitation does not include the structure, material, or acts necessary to perform the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Tri-Med, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1303–04 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the court must “determine whether the claim nevertheless recites sufficient structure for performing the . . . function to take it outside the bounds of” § 112, paragraph 6).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Limitation [1b] With respect to limitation [1b], a “moveable component,” Petitioner argues that it should be construed as a means (component) having a function (moveable) that corresponds to a structure (a moving weight). Pet. 7. Petitioner argues that “essentially any physical component can perform the function of being moved,” references different types of structure as the moving components in the ’830 patent, and concludes that therefore the term has no definite structure. Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 4A–4G, 14, 15–17). Patent Owner argues for a non-means-plus-function construction of a component that “is capable of being moved.” PO Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 55). Patent Owner argues, and Petitioner agrees, that “there is likely no material difference between” the parties’ proffered constructions such that construction is necessary. Id. at 8; Pet. Reply 7. We agree, because Petitioner has shown, and Patent Owner does not contest, that the prior art teaches such a component under either construction. Infra § II(D)(2)(a). Because Petitioner’s assertions and our determination would be unaffected by its proposed construction, we need not construe this term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that a showing of motivation is required. Whether a proposed combination rests on “combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful.” In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The General Electric decision cited by Petitioner does not hold otherwise. In General Electric, the Federal Circuit considered an obviousness challenge based on combining disclosures from multiple references. See Gen. Elec., 983 F.3d at 1339–40, 1344–52. The Federal Circuit criticized the Board for dissecting an embodiment disclosed in the primary reference into a collection of “individual elements” and requiring the patent challenger to “re-do the work already done” regarding that embodiment in the primary reference. Id. at 1351–52. The Federal Circuit did not consider an obviousness challenge based on combining multiple embodiments from a single reference. See id. at 1344–52. Therefore, we do not agree with Petitioner that no motivation to combine the Figure 3 and Figure 83 embodiments of Fukumoto need be shown.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,941,830 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,941,830
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.