- Nuvei Technologies, Inc. v. Autoscribe CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00089 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Nuvei did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–27 would have been obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“providing” negative limitation of independent claim 1, and the similar negative limitations of independent claims 8, 15, 23, and 25. Accordingly, Nuvei has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertions that the subject matter of independent claims 1, 8, 15, 23, and 25 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Stringfellow and Kloster.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the art “would have had at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or comparable field of study, and (2) at least two years’ experience working with and programming networked computer systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 36). Nuvei also argues that “[a]dditional education might substitute for some experience, and vice versa.” Id. In the Preliminary Response, Autoscribe does not address the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Nuvei’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with both the ’621 patent and the asserted prior art, and it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“The supporting testimony from Nuvei’s declarant, Dr. Almeroth, on these issues fare no better. Dr. Almeroth provides no additional explanation beyond the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition to support Nuvei’s assertion that Kloster does not provide the payment data token to the payer during its token retrieval functions. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 100.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“argument that Kloster does not teach the “without providing” negative limitation required by each independent claim. Nuvei appears to contend that Kloster teaches this limitation in two different ways—namely, through either a “call back URL” or “API calls by the merchant.” Pet. 50–51 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 15, 23) (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 24). We address Nuvei’s contentions in turn.” slip op. at 21
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,620,621 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01159 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–27 were unpatentable over the asserted PayPal-based obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Autoscribe’s argument that PayPal Express Checkout does not teach the “providing” steps of independent claim 1 and 25 and the “receiving” step of independent claim 15 for two reasons. First, as we explain in our claim construction analysis above, we decline to adopt M&A Ventures’s proposed construction of the “providing” and “receiving” steps as being limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” Instead, we construe the “providing” and “receiving” steps in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings, which includes giving the negative limitation recited therein (i.e., not providing the data token to the payer) patentable weight, without limiting the occurrence of this negative limitation during execution of the token retrieval function. See supra Section II.A.1. With this construction in mind, step 4 of the PayPal Express Checkout flow run in the sandbox environment plainly sends the Payer ID, which M&A Ventures maps to the claimed “data token,” to the buyer. Ex. 1006, 17, 25–26; see also Pet. 64 (arguing PayPal’s Payer ID teaches the “non-sensitive electronic data token” (emphasis omitted)), 67 (arguing the same). Because PayPal sends the Payer ID to the buyer during the PayPal Express Checkout flow, PayPal provides the data token to the payer and, therefore, violates the negative limitation required by the “providing” and “receiving” steps.” slip op. at 31
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We must look to all the intrinsic evidence of record, including the claim language itself, the specification of the ’621 patent, and its prosecution history, to determine whether the “providing” steps of independent claims 1, 8, and 25, and the “receiving” step of independent claims 15 and 23, should be limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” See, e.g., DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“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.”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Autoscribe’s argument that PayPal Express Checkout does not teach the “providing” steps of independent claim 1 and 25 and the “receiving” step of independent claim 15 for two reasons. First, as we explain in our claim construction analysis above, we decline to adopt M&A Ventures’s proposed construction of the “providing” and “receiving” steps as being limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” Instead, we construe the “providing” and “receiving” steps in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings, which includes giving the negative limitation recited therein (i.e., not providing the data token to the payer) patentable weight, without limiting the occurrence of this negative limitation during execution of the token retrieval function. See supra Section II.A.1. With this construction in mind, step 4 of the PayPal Express Checkout flow run in the sandbox environment plainly sends the Payer ID, which M&A Ventures maps to the claimed “data token,” to the buyer. Ex. 1006, 17, 25–26; see also Pet. 64 (arguing PayPal’s Payer ID teaches the “non-sensitive electronic data token” (emphasis omitted)), 67 (arguing the same). Because PayPal sends the Payer ID to the buyer during the PayPal Express Checkout flow, PayPal provides the data token to the payer and, therefore, violates the negative limitation required by the “providing” and “receiving” steps.” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,620,621 - PTAB · Jan 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01145 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 and 7–11 were unpatentable on any of four proposed grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“current record that enables us to determine the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Relying upon the testimony of its declarant Dr. Christopher Hansen, Petitioner argues the following: As of the earliest claimed priority date, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’559 Patent (“POSITA”) would have had a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three years of experience designing, developing, and/or testing telecommunication systems. A” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In addition to the above information, it would be beneficial for the macro eNB to send a measurement gap configuration (as dis-cussed in 3GPP TS 36.331 V1.1.2.0) allocated for the UE to the Small cell eNB so that the Small cell eNB could take measure-ment gaps into consideration when scheduling resources to the UE. For example, the small cell eNB could avoid scheduling the UE during measurement gaps because the UE cannot transmit or receive any signal to/from the Small cell during the measurement gaps. Ex. 1001, 6:41–49 (emphasis added). We particularly note the literal written description support (in italics) in the ’559 Patent that mirrors the claim [1e] language: “so that the Small cell eNB could take measurement gaps into consideration when scheduling resources to the UE.” Id. at 6:45–46 (emphasis added). Moreover, as noted above, Figure 5 of the ’559 Patent depicts flow chart 500. Prelim. Resp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:3). And step 525 of Figure 5 affirmatively describes: “The second eNB receives the measurement gap configuration from the first eNB, and takes the measurement gap configuration into consideration when scheduling resources to the UE.” Id. at Fig. 5, step 525 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“cites to Advanced Display Systems Inc. v. Kent State University (212 F.3d 1272, 1281–1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000)), which sets forth the doctrine of incorporation by reference that provides a mechanism to include as a matter of law in one document the disclosure of another document. As explained by the court in Advanced Display Systems, the requirements for an effective incorporation by reference are as follows: To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it in-corporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the 10 We note Exhibit 1014 is the Declaration of Craig Bishop, a second declaration relied upon by Petitioner, that is generally directed to the nature, purpose, dates, and public accessibility of the 3GPP TS.331 Exhibits 1008, 1009, and 1015. See e.g., Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 65–67. This is in addition to Exhibit 1003, which is the Declaration of Dr. Hansen, for Petitioner. We have considered both declarations, to the extent relied upon by Petitioner. USPQ 144, 146 (CCPA 1973) (providing that incorporation by reference requires a statement “clearly identifying the subject matter which is incorporated and where it is to be found”); In re Saunders, . . . 444 F.2d 599, 602-03, 170 USPQ 213, 216-17 (CCPA 1971) (reasoning that a rejection for anticipation is ap-propriate only if one reference “expressly incorporates a particu-lar part” of another reference); National Latex Prods. Co. v. Sun Rubber Co., 274 F.2d 224, 230, 123 USPQ 279, 283 (6th Cir. 1959) (requiring a specific reference to material in an earlier ap-plication in order [to] have that material considered part of a later application). Advanced Display Systems, 212 F.3d at 1281–1282 (emphasis added). Here, we find Petitioner has not persuasively shown how Centonza expressly incorporates a particular part of the TS 36.331 reference by: (1) identifying with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates, and (2) clearly indicating where that material is found in the TS 36.331 document. Pet. 33; Exhibits 1008, 1009.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,560,559 - AT&T Services Inc. / T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Innovative Sonic Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00991 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground for claims 1–11.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner responds that “a person with the 3-year experience proposed by Petitioner would not have the intimate knowledge of the existing standardized cellular system” required to understand “how a proposed change would impact the rest of the system.” Prelim. Resp. 7. But Patent Owner also states that engineers participating in the development of the relevant cellular specifications “would not be expected to be familiar with all relevant aspects of the specifications” given their length and complexity. Id. at 7–8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above, because we are satisfied that it generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’883 patent and the asserted prior art. To the extent Patent Owner disagrees (see Prelim. Resp. 6–8), it fails to sufficiently explain its contrary position by, for example, providing its own proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “the Board does not need to expressly construe any terms” in this proceeding because “the prior art in this Petition discloses all limitations under any plausible construction.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner similarly states that “all terms are entitled to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 21. We agree with the parties that it is not necessary to construe any claim terms or phrases in this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe only those terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (cleaned up).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(step 406) discloses the claimed “second request” (Pet. 44–45),9 but Petitioner fails to show that this message discloses a request. See Prelim. Resp. 46–48. Han explains that the dual connection setup response in step 406 is a “dual connection setup request acknowledge (ACK)” message sent in response to “dual connection setup request” received in step 404. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 40–42; accord Pet. 42–44. An acknowledgement is not a request, and Petitioner fails to sufficiently support its contention to the contrary (see Pet. 44–45). According to Petitioner, the acknowledgement message is “a request to change a data path” because the data path is “change[d] . . . based on this message” (id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 42–47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 202)); however, this is faulty reasoning. At most, Petitioner’s argument shows that the acknowledgement is a message “to change a data 9 We note that this is the same message relied upon by Petitioner to teach the claimed “accept message” recited earlier in claim 1. Compare Pet. 44– 45, with id. at 43–44. We need not (and do not) decide whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown that this message discloses two separate claim elements. path,” not that it is a request to do so. In other words, even if Han’s acknowledgement message (in step 406) is a condition precedent to changing the data path, this does not make the message a “request.” Although Dr. Mahon agrees with Petitioner, his analysis mirrors Petitioner’s arguments and suffers from the same deficiencies. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 202– 203; see also Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An expert’s conclusory testimony, unsupported by the documentary evidence, cannot supplant the requirement of anticipatory disclosure in the prior art reference itself.”).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,736,883 - Vizio, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00722 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because it could not determine with reasonable certainty the scope of “a different user interface device” to assess the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“an analysis to assess “whether the prior art discloses rendering something other than the second navigation bar” if a second user interface cannot contain that second navigation bar. Prelim. Reply 3–4. But our goal would not be to determine whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering something other than the second navigation bar” (Prelim. Reply 3), but rather whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering a different user interface device” (Ex. 1001, 55:26–29). In Samsung, the Federal Circuit notes that “the proper course for the Board to follow, if it cannot ascertain the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty for the purposes of assessing patentability, is to decline to institute the IPR or, if the indefiniteness issue affects only certain claims, to conclude that it could not reach a decision on keeping with this general direction from our reviewing court, and because no exception curing the impossibility of reaching a determination regarding unpatentability appears in this case, we do not institute an inter partes review. Given our conclusion that we cannot determine the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device” with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability, we decline to institute inter partes review on the grounds presented.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“After considering the determinations in the District Court Order, we agree with the district court that we cannot ascertain with reasonable certainty the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device.” See Ex. 2001, 25 (the district court explaining that “‘user interface device’ in the claim and in view of the intrinsic evidence, as emphasized by counsel’s 3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated . reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”). As the district court found, the ’168 patent specification uses the term “user interface device” inconsistently, for example, describing “four different user interface devices” in a navigation bar including the “movies user interface device 2204” in Figure 22A. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1001, 45:19–20, 45:27–29). Additionally, the specification appears to describe user interface devices with reference to the rows in Figure 22B, and other parts of the specification also describe selectable interface elements as “user interface device[s].” Ex. 1001, 45:33–37 (cited at Ex. 2001, 23–24), 41:31– 45, 46:67–47:2, 47:18–21, 48:18–20. Still further, the specification appears to describe a menu as a type of user interface device. Id. at 49:3–5 (cited at Ex. 2001, 24), 51:17–19 (same). In addition to these citations from the District Court Order, we note that the term “user interface device” is used when describing a user selecting a specific year from a display of years provided on a user interface: “If user selection 1460 is selected by the user using a user interface device, a new user interface presentation is provided.” Id. at 40:39–46 (emphasis added). On the record before us, we agree with the district court that, based on the ambiguity in the specification, “it is indiscernible what subset of the user interface, if any, is the user interface device.” Ex. 2001, 24. Therefore, we conclude that we cannot determine the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device” with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot reached
“an analysis to assess “whether the prior art discloses rendering something other than the second navigation bar” if a second user interface cannot contain that second navigation bar. Prelim. Reply 3–4. But our goal would not be to determine whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering something other than the second navigation bar” (Prelim. Reply 3), but rather whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering a different user interface device” (Ex. 1001, 55:26–29). In Samsung, the Federal Circuit notes that “the proper course for the Board to follow, if it cannot ascertain the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty for the purposes of assessing patentability, is to decline to institute the IPR or, if the indefiniteness issue affects only certain claims, to conclude that it could not reach a decision on keeping with this general direction from our reviewing court, and because no exception curing the impossibility of reaching a determination regarding unpatentability appears in this case, we do not institute an inter partes review. Given our conclusion that we cannot determine the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device” with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability, we decline to institute inter partes review on the grounds presented.” slip op. at 16
Claim constructioncites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,232,168 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00922 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were obvious over Larson and Cai.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the reasons given, we determine Petitioner has not has not shown that the asserted prior art teaches or suggests limitation [1.7]. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Larson and Cai. a) Conclusion—Claim 1 For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“comprise the background knowledge art, with very little substantive explanation. In our view, this string-citation, without more substantive explanation, does not satisfy Petitioner’s obligation to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Larson based on the background knowledge in the art to account for limitation 1.7.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner “agrees to use Petitioner’s definition” for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’823 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states “each claim term in the Challenged Claims” should “be given its plain and ordinary meaning,” and “that no specific construction of any claim term is required.” Pet. 17–18. Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that, for this proceeding and the grounds presented by Petitioner, no claim term requires construction.” Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this Decision, no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,446,823 - Cisco System, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00498 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Cisco did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–26 were obvious over Shieh and Potti, principally for lack of a sufficient rationale to combine.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Preliminary Reply, and UMBRA’s Preliminary Sur-reply, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that Cisco would prevail in challenging any one of claims 1–26 of the ’482 patent as unpatentable. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“current record that enables us to determine the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Reddy, Cisco argues the following: a [person of ordinary skill in the art] in April 2015 timeframe would have been familiar with communication networks having a distribute firewall system in the cloud. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have a working knowledge of the function performed by firewalls including stateful inspection and deep packet inspection. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have gained knowledge of these concepts through a mixture of training and work experience, such as by having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science and two years of experience; or by obtaining a Master’s degree in computer science, but having only one year of experience; or by having no formal education but experience in computer network security of at least four years. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). UMBRA does not address the level of skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 1–16. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Cisco’s assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Reddy and it is consistent with the ’482 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Notably absent from the “State of the Art” section is a specific reason why a person of ordinary skill would take Potti’s disclosure of performing DPI on a cloned copy of traffic and apply it to Shieh’s service processing module 313, which Cisco relies on to teach the claimed “second perimeter firewall.” See Pet. 15–19; see also id. at 40 (arguing that Shieh’s service processing module 313 (pink) teaches the claimed “second perimeter firewall”). Instead, Cisco generally discusses the evolution of firewall technology and its move to the cloud as of April 2015, but does not identify the benefits that result from modifying Shieh in this way. At best, Cisco asserts that “[t]he prior art references, and the discussions of what was known to a [person of ordinary skill in the art], provide the factual support for the general description of the state of the art at the time of the invention, and provide additional motivation to modify or combine the references.” Pet. 15. In our view, merely providing a general description of the state of the art and asserting that it provides a motivation to combine, without providing the necessary factual underpinnings to support the purported benefits that result for combining the relevant teachings of Shieh and Potti, is akin to stating in a conclusory fashion that this proposed combination “would have been obvious.” See In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that “a finding that a combination of prior art would have been ... ‘intuitive’ is no different than merely stating the combination ‘would have been obvious’ ”).” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“A review of Cisco’s testimony from its declarant, Dr. Reddy, reveals no additional explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Potti with those of Shieh. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–137. These portions of Dr. Reddy’s testimony merely parrot the arguments presented by Cisco in the Petition. That is, he relies on a general description of the state of the art, without providing any additional explanation beyond the bare assertion in the Petition that a person of ordinary skill would have used purported “well-known techniques” to combine Shieh’s service processing module 313 with Potti’s disclosure of performing DPI on a cloned copy of traffic.” slip op. at 21
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,574,482 - Dji Europe B.V. v. Textron Innovations Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01107 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 9–14 and 16 under either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’950 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“pilot identification information.” In claim 13, limitations [13D]–[13H] similarly recite “pilot identification information.” The Petition does not address the scope and meaning of these claim terms, but Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 44–46, 57–60; Prelim. Sur-Reply 2–3), and we agree, that Petitioner’s analyses of these limitations are inconsistent and deficient. slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“pilot identification information.” In claim 13, limitations [13D]–[13H] similarly recite “pilot identification information.” The Petition does not address the scope and meaning of these claim terms, but Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 44–46, 57–60; Prelim. Sur-Reply 2–3), and we agree, that Petitioner’s analyses of these limitations are inconsistent and deficient. slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,275,950 - Dji Europe B.V. v. Textron Innovations Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01106 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because DJI did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–5, 7, and 8 obvious, due to deficient and inconsistent treatment of “pilot identification information.”
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’950 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“inconsistent (Prelim. Resp. 44–46, 57–59), Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply argues “[Patent Owner] offers no[] explicit construction of ‘pilot identification information’ but implicitly interprets the independent claims to require the identical information be used as ‘pilot identification information’ in each limitation” (Prelim. Reply 4). Critically, though, the same is true of the Petition; Petitioner offers no explicit construction of “pilot identification information,” and Petitioner fails to establish or even address whether each limitation requires identical information as the “pilot identification information.” Indeed, even though Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply acknowledges Patent Owner’s inconsistency arguments and the potential for different interpretations of the claim terms, Petitioner chose not to provide a claim interpretation nor otherwise rectify or clarify the positions taken in the Petition with respect to “pilot identification information.” Instead, Petitioner argues only that Patent Owner takes similarly inconsistent positions in its district-court infringement contentions. Prelim. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1012, 31, 37, 46). And although Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s claim interpretation in this proceeding is too narrow, Petitioner does not present its own interpretation, much less provide a claim interpretation analysis. Prelim. Reply 1 (arguing “[patent owner] applies a broad interpretation of these terms in the district court to show alleged infringement but in this IPR argues that the plain meaning of the terms is narrow to avoid invalidity”), 5 (referring to Patent Owner’s arguments as a “narrow view of ‘pilot identification information’” that requires a “strict identity interpretation of ‘pilot identification information’ in the ‘transceiver’ and ‘only accessible’ limitations”). Even if Petitioner is correct that Patent Owner arguments treat the patent claims like a nose of wax (Prelim. Reply 1), that cannot alleviate Petitioner’s burden of persuasion and only highlights Petitioner’s failure to provide an interpretation in the face of claim language that is admittedly subject to some range of interpretations. For these reasons, on this record, Petitioner has not carried its burden to show a likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to independent claim 1 as presented in the Warner-Wakutsu-Shavit grounds, nor dependent claims 2– 5, 7, and 8, which include the same deficiencies.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“pilot identification information.” The Petition does not address the scope and meaning of this claim term, but Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 44– 46, 57–59; Prelim. Sur-Reply 3), and we agree, that Petitioner’s analyses of these limitations are inconsistent and deficient. Highlighting the Petition’s inconsistencies, for limitations [1E] and [1J], Petitioner states “in Shavit . . . the pilot ‘types in or selects his name, the name of the co-pilot if any, and the aircraft’s serial number.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 108). For limitation [1H], however, Petitioner states Shavit’s “user credential for a pilot includes ‘pilot identification information.’” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 87; Ex. 1003 ¶ 116). Responding to Patent Owner’s arguments that those positions are inconsistent (Prelim. Resp. 44–46, 57–59), Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply argues “[Patent Owner] offers no[] explicit construction of ‘pilot identification information’ but implicitly interprets the independent claims to require the identical information be used as ‘pilot identification information’ in each limitation” (Prelim. Reply 4). Critically, though, the same is true of the Petition; Petitioner offers no explicit construction of “pilot identification information,” and Petitioner fails to establish or even address whether each limitation requires identical information as the “pilot identification information.” Indeed, even though Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply acknowledges Patent Owner’s inconsistency arguments and the potential for different interpretations of the claim terms, Petitioner chose not to provide a claim interpretation nor otherwise rectify or clarify the positions taken in the Petition with respect to “pilot identification information.” Instead, Petitioner argues only that Patent Owner takes similarly inconsistent positions in its district-court infringement contentions. Prelim. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1012, 31, 37, 46). And although Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s claim interpretation in this proceeding is too narrow, Petitioner does not present its own interpretation, much less provide a claim interpretation analysis. Prelim. Reply 1 (arguing “[patent owner] applies a broad interpretation of these terms in the district court to show alleged infringement but in this IPR argues that the plain meaning of the terms is narrow to avoid invalidity”), 5 (referring to Patent Owner’s arguments as a “narrow view of ‘pilot identification information’” that requires a “strict identity interpretation of ‘pilot identification information’ in the ‘transceiver’ and ‘only accessible’ limitations”). Even if Petitioner is correct that Patent Owner arguments treat the patent claims like a nose of wax (Prelim. Reply 1), that cannot alleviate Petitioner’s burden of persuasion and only highlights Petitioner’s failure to provide an interpretation in the face of claim language that is admittedly subject to some range of interpretations. For these reasons, on this record, Petitioner has not carried its burden slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,275,950 - Microsoft Corporation v. Throughputer, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 9, 2023 · IPR2023-00852 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–15 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Tuan was a prior art printed publication, defeating the asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date” of the ’948 patent (i.e., November 4, 2011). Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 (emphasis added). As a result, we determine that Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Tuan qualifies as a prior art printed publication. See id. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claims 1–15 would have been obvious over the combination of Nollet, Tuan, and Seo. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review on the asserted ground as to any of the challenged claims. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“Importantly, Ms. Munford’s testimony does not indicate that an ordinary artisan could have located Tuan with reasonable diligence. We additionally find that Ms. Munford’s conclusory assertion that Tuan “was made available to the public” in October 2009 (Ex. 1012 ¶ 11; see also Ex. 1015 ¶ 9) is insufficient to establish public accessibility. As our reviewing court has explained, it is “critical” that there be “some evidence that a person of ordinary skill could have reasonably found” the reference. Samsung, 929 F.3d at 1369; see also id. at 1372 (stating that a reference “is not publicly accessible if the only people who know how to find it are the ones who created it”). In other words, even assuming that Ms. Munford establishes Tuan was technically available to the public in October 2009, her testimony fails to support a finding that an ordinary artisan could have located Tuan with reasonable diligence.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner fails to “identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date” of the ’948 patent (i.e., November 4, 2011). Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 (emphasis added). As a result, we determine that Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Tuan qualifies as a prior art printed publication. See id. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claims 1–15 would have been obvious over the combination of Nollet, Tuan, and Seo.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Citing testimony from Dr. Houh, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a combination of a Bachelor’s Degree (or a similar Master’s Degree, or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing computer science, or a related field, and two or more years of work experience with parallel processing technologies.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Preliminary Response. On the present record, we are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposed definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’948 patent (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 21), and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,150,948
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.