- Unified Patents, LLC v. Peter Henrik PedersenAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00029 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 14–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Funk and Law and over Funk and Kamakura.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the Challenged Claims, identified below, invoke §112 ¶6, Petitioner identifies their function and corresponding structure in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” Id. at 11–21. We are not persuaded that any terms from the ’920 patent should be construed as means plus function terms.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“[a] high volume e-mail ‘newspaper’ delivery system.” Ex. 1006, code (57). Funk’s newspaper is created by “manipulat[ing] publicly available information (AP wire service, Reuters, Business Wire, etc.)” and matching that information to a user profile. Id. at 1:49–50. These various inputs (information sources 100) all feed into service processing system 104. Id. at 5:43–44, Fig. 1. In addition, as we discussed above, Funk also discloses third parties that may send information to the customers. See Reply 9. Law’s “information delivery system includes a web server in operative communication with a plurality of recipients and a plurality of senders.” Ex. 1007, code (57). Thus, Law’s web server and Funk’s service processing system both connect multiple information sources to the email system. Law sets out to “improv[e] the collection and dissemination of recipient preferences for messages . . . by collecting recipient preference data and making it available to a plurality of senders for their use in preparing messages intended for a selected recipient.” Id. at 2:26–30. According to Petitioner, “[i]n the Funk-Law combination, Funk’s system would maintain profiles for senders in the Funk combination database, and provide a way for senders to update their profile information, in the same way that Funk already allows customers to have user profiles.” Reply 9–10 (citing Pet. 64, Ex. 1003 ¶ 130, Ex. 1006, 11:29–33). Dr. Houh opines on behalf of Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “enhance Funk such that the Funk combined processors . . . (1) include[] a software application used to receive sender information including sender identification information from senders via the Internet to establish and update sender profiles, and (2) store[] such sender information in the Funk combination database.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 129. According to Dr. Houh, this would have required the application of a known technique, Funk’s sending messages from parties to customers, by incorporating Law’s sender profiles to help keep track of, organize, and identify senders in Funk. Id. ¶ 130. “Funk contemplates a ‘high volume e-mail ‘newspaper’ delivery system’ that parties can use to send emails to customers, but does not provide explicit disclosure on how various parties sending messages would maintain profiles with Funk’s system.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 130. Dr. Houh further opines that “in the combination of Funk and Law, Funk’s system would maintain profiles for sending parties in the Funk combination database, and provide a way for senders to update their profile information, in the same way that Funk already allows customers to have user profiles that the users may update in Funk’s system.” Id. As such, we are persuaded that this modification would have been obvious in light of Law’s teachings. Patent Owner contends that “[t]here is no need in Funk for multiple sender profiles since it uses a single sender, and there is no motivation in Funk or Law to combine Law’s multiple sender profiles application with Funk’s system that only uses a single sender.” PO Resp. 36. We must, however, be mindful of the Supreme Court’s statement that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Petitioner’s asserted modification would allow the existing information sources in Funk to target the impact of their information in a manner similar to the screening provided to users of Funk’s system. Petitioner provides a sufficient rationale to support its assertions that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add this functionality to Funk’s system. We are persuaded that Petitioner is correct in asserting that the asserted modification would only require the application of a known method to achieve a predictable result. Pet. 63–65. slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 6,965,920 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,965,920 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01411 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Johnson renders at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2023). Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’705 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityOther
“The parties identify themselves as real parties-in-interest. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2. In addition, Petitioner states that it “is a subsidiary of Hisense Group,” and that “[o]ther privies or real parties in interest include companies within the Hisense Group, including Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investment Co., Ltd.; Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd.; Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd.; Hisense International (HK) Co., Ltd.; Hisense International Co., Ltd.; [and] TVS REGZA Corporation.” Pet. 1.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art does not substantively impact our analysis for purposes of institution. Rather, we find in applying either parties’ definition for what comprises the level of ordinary skill in the art that Petitioner shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claims. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 8–9. This definition for the level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’705 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), following the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340–41, 51,343 (Oct. 11, 2018). In applying such standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be 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). Here, the parties agree that no claim terms require construction. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 4–5. Thus, for purposes of our Decision on Institution, we need not provide an express construction of any claim term. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,872,705 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01412 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5, 11–13, 16, 17, 47, and 48 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2023). Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’710 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art does not substantively impact our analysis for purposes of institution. Rather, we find in applying either parties’ definition for what comprises the level of ordinary skill in the art that Petitioner shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claims. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 10. This definition for the level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’710 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Here, the parties do not submit any claim terms for construction. Pet. 10; see generally Prelim. Resp. Thus, for purposes of our Decision on Institution, we see no need to provide an express construction of any term. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,330,710 - Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2023-01442 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under either anticipation ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the 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 stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. In addition, for the reasons stated on the merits of the Petition, we do not reach the question of whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We, therefore, deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art “would have been an individual who, as of July 18, 2002, the filing date of the ’667 Patent, had either: (1) a Bachelor’s Degree or higher in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and at least one year of related practical experience; or (2) at least four years of practical experience in data management.” Pet. 9 (citing Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not provide a description of the person of ordinary skill or dispute Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner “gives the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification and prosecution history as would have been read by a [person of ordinary skill].” Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not comment on claim construction. We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We do not see the need to construe claim terms to resolve the issues in dispute. E. Description of the Prior Art References” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other
“The Federal Circuit addressed the legal standard for anticipation in Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016): “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), a prior art reference will anticipate if it ‘disclose[s] each and every element of the claimed invention . . . arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.’” 815 F.3d at 1341 (citation omitted) (footnote omitted). C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,020,667 - Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 2, 2024 · IPR2023-01441 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted prior art.
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 “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 stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“persuasive. As both parties note, the phrase in question recites “creating” a second data miner, which requires the generation of a new data miner. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that during prosecution of the ’526 patent prior art references were “expressly distinguished” because the prior art merely “pick[ed] a pre-existing search engine” or fell short because “no new miners [were] created.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 49 (citing Ex. 1002, 83, 34); accord Ex. 2001 ¶ 57 (similar testimony from Patent Owner’s declarant). We agree with the parties that this phrase requires the generation of a new data miner. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction falls short because it does not properly address the requirement that the second data miner be created “in response to the customer request.” Patent Owner states, and we agree, that “provid[ing] customized results to the user based on the customized parameters of the user search request” does not address the requirement that the second data miner be created “in response to” a customer request. Prelim. Resp. 9. In support of Patent Owner’s assertions, Patent Owner’s declarant points out that “as described with reference to FIG. 2 of the ’526 Patent, ‘customer requests for information can be received’ at block 66 and then at block 68, [‘]additional low level miners can be written in response, or high level miners, if required and not yet written, can be created.’” Ex. 2001 ¶ 61 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:32–35) (emphasis added). As stated in the ’526 patent a “‘miner’ or ‘data mining element’ is . . . an analysis engine that generates an output, and specifically an output that can include one or more keys representing characteristics of an entity, using a set of rules.” Ex. 1001, 5:63–66. The ’526 patent further notes that “the data miners are modular components that have specific input and output specifications.” Id. at 6:25–26. Further, “[m]iners are specified in terms of the data, usually as indicated by the below-described keys, that must be available when they start, and the data (including other keys) that they will create during successful processing.” Id. at 6:36–40. Thus, our review of the intrinsic record persuades us that creation of a second data miner requires the creation of a new “analysis engine,” and not just the provision of customized parameters to an existing “analysis engine.” Therefore, for the purposes of this decision, we construe the phrase “creating at least a second data miner in response to the customer request for information,” to require (1) the creation of at least one new second data miner, (2) that this creation be done in response to a customer request.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“As to the first argument, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Jacobsen’s site ranking is created in response to a user request. Jacobsen’s site ranking feature “analyzes the Internet (i.e., the sites found) to determine the degree to which sites have been found interesting by others in the desired context/profession.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 67. A word score is saved for each word on each page (i.e., except for stop words, as discussed above). When a user enters a query, the inventive SSSE determines a set of (relevant) pages that contain the query terms. For each page, the word scores are summed for the words of the query to compute a site ranking for that page. The site rankings for the pages are then used in determining how to display the search results to the user. Id. ¶ 69. Based on our review of Jacobsen’s disclosures, we are persuaded that the query is an input to the site ranking feature. As described in the ’526 specification, a “‘miner’' or ‘data mining element’ is . . . an analysis engine that generates an output, and specifically an output that can include one or more keys representing characteristics of an entity, using a set of rules.” Ex. 1001, 5:63–66 (emphasis added). Site ranking in Jacobsen is performed after a user query, but on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown that the analysis engine used to rank the sites is not created “in response to” the user query. See also Pet. 14 n. 7 (stating that Jacobsen discloses “the use of a pre-existing template to search the results of a first data miner”). In addition, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the site ranking feature in Jacobsen would disclose a data miner as recited in the claims. The ’526 patent describes prior art systems that “generat[ed] an inverted index of words that occur on Web pages.” Ex. 1001, 1:22–23. User queries were provided with output based on that index and the results “returned are usually ranked by relevance using e.g., link information or key word frequency of occurrence.” Id. at 1:29–31. Petitioner’s declarant describes these disclosures are applicant admitted prior art. Ex. 1008 ¶ 52. The ’526 patent criticizes this prior method as inefficient because, despite the ranking “finding particular types of information typically entails a great deal of mundane sifting through query results by a person” and this process is “labor-intensive and mundane,” ranking “can consume an excessive’ amount of time.” Ex. 1001, 1:31–35, 1:42–43, 2:5–6. In contrast, the ’526 patent’s system purportedly “integrates the knowledge of many experts to sift through a large corpus of data to respond to what might be relatively complex requests for information.” Id. at 3:9–11. Its data miners are analysis engines that operate based on expert rules. Id. at code (57), 5:63– 66. Petitioner’s allegations have not persuaded us that Jacobsen’s site ranking feature overcomes the problems of the prior art ranking system. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we determine that” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success
“E. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 2 and 35 Over Jacobsen, and Over Jacobsen and Jaramillo, and Alleged Obviousness of Claims 6–9, 11, 16, 17, 39–42, 44, 49, and 50 Over Jacobsen and Hegli Petitioner asserts that dependent claims 2 and 35 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jacobsen, and as obvious over Jacobsen and Jaramillo. Pet. 4, 32–38. Petitioner also asserts that dependent claims 6–9, 11, 16, 17, 39–42, 44, 49, and 50 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jacobsen and Hegli. Pet. 4, 38–50. Petitioner’s assertions here rely on the same disclosures from Jacobsen regarding the above discussed independent claims and do not remedy the above noted deficiency. As such, on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s Jacobsen-based challenges to claims 2, 6–9, 11, 16, 17, 35, 39–42, 44, 49, and 50. F. Alleged Anticipation of Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 13, 19, 20, 34, 39, 42, 44, 46,” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,010,526 - PTAB · Apr 2, 2024 · IPR2023-01410 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–7 and 9–12 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim under either §103 combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. We may institute an inter partes review if “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). Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at this preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’075 patent. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’075 patent and with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a graduate degree in mechanical engineering, physics, materials science, electrical engineering, or a related discipline, coupled with at least four years’ experience in designing backlighting systems for displays; the level of ordinary skill in the art is approximate and additional education could make up for a lack of experience or vice-versa. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have [had] (a) a Bachelor’s of Science degree in a technical field and at least four years of experience in the field of design and/or manufacture of display systems; (b) a Master’s of Science degree in a technical field and at least two years of experience in the field of design and/or manufacture of display systems; or (c) a PhD in a technical field relating to the design and/or manufacture of display systems. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. 4 Neither party presents objective evidence of nonobviousness at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“We preliminarily find that column 6, lines 47 through 51 of the ’075 patent provides a meaning of the term “on.” That disclosure in the ’075 patent states that “[i]t will be understood that when an element such as a layer, region or substrate is referred to as being ‘on’ or extending ‘onto’ another element, it can be directly on or extend directly onto the other element or intervening elements may also be present.” Ex. 1001, 6:47–51 (emphasis added). Our preliminary finding is consistent with both parties’ constructions proposed in the parallel district court case. Prelim. Resp. 4; Ex. 2003, 4. We agree with Patent Owner that the disagreement between the parties in the parallel district court case appears to be of form, rather than substance. Prelim. Resp. 5. We decline to resolve that dispute here. We also preliminarily find that Patent Owner’s construction in this proceeding prohibiting airgaps is not consistent with the meaning of the term “on” based on the intrinsic record as understood based on the arguments made at this early juncture. Because intervening elements, such as a diffuser sheet, may be present, the intrinsic record does not support a narrow meaning of the term “on.” As will be discussed further below, the ’075 patent describes in “contrast” to the term “on,” the term “directly on” means “there are no intervening elements present.” Ex. 1001, 6:51–53. We, therefore, preliminarily find that construing “on” such that airgaps may be present is consistent with the claim language and patent disclosure. Ex. 1001, 6:47–51, 21:51–22:3.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We also preliminary find that Mok does not teach away from Petitioner’s proposed combination. We agree with Patent Owner to the extent that Mok discloses that “[g]enerally speaking, larger spaced-distances 48 will improve the uniformity of the light produced by the panel, but at the expense of panel thickness and some loss of efficiency.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 23. Mok’s description, however, continues as follows “[b]y way of example, in one embodiment, the diffuser 16 is separated from the base panel 12 by a distance 48 of about 50 millimeters (mm) or less.” Id. Our reviewing court has explained that “[t]he fact that [a] motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.” See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We preliminarily find that the relative advantages (e.g., reduced panel thickness) and disadvantages (e.g., reduced light uniformity) of modifying Mok’s lighting panel to include Holman’s stacking arrangement amount to a tradeoff is a decision within the level of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Indeed, Mok acknowledges this tradeoff. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 23 (“Generally speaking, larger spaced-distances 48 will improve the uniformity of the light produced by the panel, but at the expense of panel thickness and some loss of efficiency.”). For the reasons given, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that each of Mok alone and the combination of Mok and Holman teaches element 1D for purposes of institution. We also preliminarily find Petitioner’s reasons for combining the asserted art are sufficiently persuasive for institution. Petitioner’s arguments that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success (see § III.E.1) also are sufficient for purposes of institution. We preliminarily find that Petitioner’s showing is not undermined by Patent Owner’s arguments at this early stage.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,294,075 - PTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01401 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 17–25 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Hisense would prove at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2023). Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’331 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art does not substantively impact our analysis for purposes of institution. Rather, we find in applying either parties’ definition for what comprises the level of likelihood that it would prevail in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claims. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 9. This definition for the level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’331 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below. During trial, and in accordance with our Rules, the parties should address what substantive effect, if any, different proposed definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art have on analyzing what the prior art teaches or in otherwise evaluating unpatentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), following the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340–41, 51,343 (Oct. 11, 2018). In applying such standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be 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). Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 5–6. Thus, for purposes of our Decision on Institution, we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We agree with Petitioner and find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lys and Grootes’s teachings to have a current supply circuit for each LED string in Lys’s lighting unit to achieve better color and brightness control and uniformity, and to achieve a desired white point. Pet. 18–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–84, 89), 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 61). At this stage, we find persuasive Mr. Betancourt’s cited testimony on this issue as it is consistent with Lys and Grootes’s teachings. For example, Lys teaches with respect to a lighting unit 102 that “[t]he sources 300 can also be mixed, including sources 300 of varying wavelength, intensity, power, quality, light output, efficiency, efficacy or other characteristics,” allow light of different colors or color temperatures, including color temperatures of white.” Ex. 1005, 37:3–8 (emphasis added). And Grootes explains, for example, that “[e]ach current source 40–42 is controllable to control the brightness of its associated LEDs to achieve the desired white point.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 41. We also agree with Petitioner and find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Lys and Grootes’s teachings to produce a lighting system having separate circuits for supplying each of the currents for the LED strings. Pet. 18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 88. Nor at this stage do we find that Lys’s lighting units having separate current supply circuits for each LED string would have been uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. See Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–20) (finding that obviousness was supported because there was no evidence that making the combination was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art). Accordingly, at this stage, we find that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support combining Lys and Grootes in the manner Petitioner proposes. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988; see also Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“A motivation to combine may be found ‘explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; . . . and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’”) (quoting ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc., 896 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,941,331 - K/S Himpp v. Bragi GmbHInstitutedPTAB · Mar 19, 2024 · IPR2023-01205 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Hain anticipates claims 1, 2, and 4 and the stated combinations render claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“While we acknowledge that Shaffer was before the Office, that alone is not sufficient to meet the first prong of the Advanced Bionics test. Factor (b) under Becton, Dickinson, which is also considered under the first prong of Advanced Bionics, examines “the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9 n.10. We note that there is no evidence or argument that Hain or Sørensen were previously considered by the Office or cumulative of art that was in front of the Office. Although one reference, Shaffer, was previously presented to the Office, in each asserted ground, Petitioner relies on either Hain or Hain in combination with Sørensen. Because neither of those references was before the office, Patent Owner has not satisfied the first prong of the Advanced Bionics test.” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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 in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“All of these arguments center on the claim language’s recitation of “one or more of the wireless earpieces.” Id. at 16. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that “[i]f both hearing aids detect a magnetic field, such as by being located in the disclosed storage box, the hearing aids are automatically switched off.” Id. at 17; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 13 (“[I]f both hearing aids detect a relatively strong magnetic field in their immediate vicinity, then this is an indication that the hearing aids are located in the storage box and can be switched off.”). Patent Owner does not appear to dispute that Hain teaches a high power mode when both earpieces do not detect a magnetic field. See Prelim. Resp. 17; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 21 (“For as long as no magnetic field is detected, the hearing aid is in ‘normal operation.’”). On the current record, we are thus persuaded that Hain discloses a low power mode when both earpieces detect a magnetic field and a high power mode when both earpieces do not detect a magnetic field. The parties’ dispute centers on the mixed situation when one earpiece detects a magnetic field and one does not. Patent Owner directs us to Hain’s disclosure of a “telephone mode” when “there is a magnetic field applied to one hearing aid but not the other, such as by a telephone receiver emitting a magnetic field.” Prelim. Resp. 16. According to Patent Owner, in order “[t]o anticipate the claims, Hain must disclose an earpiece that switches to a high power mode when only it – and not both it and its pair – no longer detects a magnetic field.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner, however, also asserts that “to anticipate the claims, Hain must disclose an earpiece that switches to a low power mode when only it – and not its pair – detects a magnetic field.” Id. at 21. Thus, we understand Patent Owner to be arguing that each earpiece must independently move to a high or low power state based on whether it detects a magnetic field. We, however, are not persuaded that the claim language is so limited. Limitation 1B recites “powering circuitry of the wireless earpieces utilizing a high-power mode in response to detecting a magnetic field is not applied to one or more of the wireless earpieces.” Limitation 1C recites “altering the power sent to the circuitry of the wireless earpiece to a high-power mode in response to detecting a magnetic field is not applied to one or more of the wireless earpieces.” Thus, the disputed portions of these limitations are met if “one or more” of the earpieces detects that a magnetic field is not present and goes into a high power mode. As noted above, on the current record, we are persuaded that Hain discloses that an earpiece goes to a high power state if it does not detect a magnetic field. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 21 (“For as long as no magnetic field is detected, the hearing aid is in ‘normal operation.’”).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“F. Obviousness over Hain and Shaffer Petitioner asserts that claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hain and Shaffer, citing the Declaration of Dr. Kiaei for support. Pet. 29–61 (citing Ex. 1002). Patent Owner argues that this ground must fail because Shaffer was previously presented to the Office and it reiterates its arguments addressed above regarding the disclosures of Hain. Prelim. Resp. 21–26. For reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by those arguments. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence and based on the evidence in the present record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that the combination of Hain and Shaffer teaches all of the limitations recited in claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14. G. Obviousness over Hain, Shaffer, and Sørensen Petitioner asserts that claims 3, 5–7, and 9–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hain, Shaffer, and Sørensen, citing the Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei for support. Pet. 61–67 (citing Ex. 1002). Patent Owner argues that this ground must fail because Shaffer was previously presented to the Office and it reiterates its arguments addressed above regarding the disclosures of Hain. Prelim. Resp. 27. For reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by those arguments. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence and based on the evidence in the present record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that the combination of Hain, Shaffer, and Sørensen teaches all of the limitations recited in claims 3, 5–7, and 9–14.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,397,688 - K/S Himpp v. Bragi GmbHInstitutedPTAB · Mar 19, 2024 · IPR2023-01204 · APJ Larry J Hume · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13 on all six asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In light of the argument and evidence before us, we find that Shaffer was previously presented to the Office and as such, the first prong of the Advanced Bionics test is satisfied.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2023). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Therefore, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims 1–13 of the ’014 patent, based on the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei, Petitioner asserts the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to a person having “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or equivalent experience, and one to two years of experience in the field of wireless electronic devices and battery systems, particularly wireless earpieces such as wireless headphones and hearing aids.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 25). At this stage, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA [(person of ordinary skill in the art)]” (Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Pet. 17)), but “reserves the right to present issues relating to the level of a POSITA should the Board institute this IPR.” Prelim. Resp. 15. Based on the current record, and for purposes of this Decision, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention, as articulated above. On this 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 ’014 patent and the asserted prior art. This definition also is supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 25. In addition, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA . . . but reserves the right to present issues relating to the level of a POSITA should the Board institute this IPR and in other proceedings involving the ’014 Patent.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Pet. 17).” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“10–13, we disagree with Patent Owner’s narrow construction requiring that the smart case includes a rechargeable battery utilized to charge a wireless device. The patent discloses an illustrative embodiment that includes a presumably rechargeable battery, i.e., “[t]he smart case 102 encloses a battery, and various other circuitry (not shown) . . . . For example, the battery of the smart case 102 may be utilized to charge the wireless earpieces 142, 144 any number of times before the smart case 102 and corresponding battery may require charging.” Ex. 1001, 3:28–37. However, as quoted below, we note the ʼ014 patent also discloses alternative embodiments of the smart case that do not require a rechargeable battery to recharge a wireless device: The smart case 402 may have any number of configurations and include various circuitry, connections, and other components. The smart case 402 is one potential embodiment of the smart case 102 of FIGS. 1–3. In one embodiment, the smart case 402 may include a battery 404, a logic engine 406, a memory 408, interfaces 410, 411, a transceiver 412, and a magnet 414. The battery 404 is a power storage device configured to charge the power storage system of the wireless earpieces 401 once or multiple times. In other embodiments, the battery 404 as well as the batteries of the wireless earpieces 401 may represent a fuel cell, thermal electric generator, piezo electric charger, solar charger, ultra-capacitor, or other existing or developing power storage technologies. Ex. 1001, 6:9–22 (emphases added). Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, in connection with claims 4, 6–8, and 10–13, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered claim construction of the phrase “smart case” that requires a rechargeable battery utilized to recharge a wireless device. No further express construction is required for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,117,014 - PTAB · Mar 14, 2024 · IPR2023-01385 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 10–12, 14–21, and 23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Chou renders claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the 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 stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim of the ’812 patent. We therefore institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’812 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has established compliance with the statutory requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) to identify all real parties in interest. C. The ’812 Patent” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the complexity of the technology described in the ’812 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Patent Owner’s use of the term “technical field” is unduly vague. Therefore, for the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed formulation. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“On this record, we preliminarily agree with Patent Owner that the ’812 patent shows alternative ways for a reflector sheet “to conform to a shape of a protruding feature” on a lighting tile that does not demand the reflector sheet have “the same shape, outline, or contour of a protruding feature” as Petitioner’s proposed construction in the Underlying Litigation would require. To illustrate this, Figures 3 and 4 from the ’812 patent are shown in their entirety below.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,690,812
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.