- PTAB · Sep 22, 2023 · IPR2023-00480 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 36, 38, 39, and 41–46, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would have been obvious over Bodor and Stelmasiak.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Analysis: Claim 36 Based on the present record, Petitioner persuades us that it is reasonably likely to prevail in establishing that claim 36 would have been obvious over Bodor and Stelmasiak. We agree with Petitioner’s showing that Bodor teaches a method for treating MS by orally administering cladribine tablets over a two-month induction period at a total dose of between 100 mg to 140 mg (equivalent to 1.4–2.0 mg/kg for the average patient) and, thus, satisfies claim 36’s preamble14 and step (i). See, e.g., Pet. 45–49. Bodor also expressly teaches such an induction period is followed by a ten-month cladribine-free period—meeting claim 36’s step (ii) (reciting a cladribine-free period of between about 8–10 months), as argued by Petitioner. Id. at 49–50; Ex. 1022, 23:15–20. Although Bodor does not explicitly describe a subsequent “maintenance period” or a secondary cladribine-free period, we find it logical, credible, and consistent with Dr. Miller’s testimony, that a POSA would have understood Bodor to suggest retreatment and that a POSA would know that retreatment is often needed given the chronic, incurable nature of MS. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 86–87, 100–102 (testifying that a POSA would have thought to readminister cladribine according to Bodor’s initial treatment regimen, disclosed as suitable for MS treatment, and optimize if 13 This paragraph is a high-level summary of Patent Owner’s argument (Prelim. Resp. 1–3, 51); we discuss Patent Owner’s argument in more detail in our analysis below but summarize here to reduce repetition. 14 We need not determine whether the preamble is limiting because, at this stage, there is no dispute that it is taught or suggested in the asserted art. supporting why it would have been routine and obvious to “tailor” the dosage, including by starting with a lower dose and “step-wise” increase it until a desired therapeutic effect is achieved. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 24:1–9;15 Ex. 1002 ¶ 93. The POSA would have also been aware, from at least Stelmasiak, that it’s possible to give lower amounts of cladribine in a maintenance phase versus an induction phase, keeping lymphocyte counts in a suppressed state, and providing therapeutic benefits even over extended periods where no cladribine is administered. Ex. 1013, 5–7 (describing a decrease in relapse rate and EDSS improvements over a twenty-four month study period). That, combined with Bodor’s teachings and an expectation that a lower dose and intermittent cladribine-free periods would help manage potential side effects, supports Petitioner’s challenge. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–52, 91, 95, 103. Based on Petitioner’s evidence and reasoning, we find it reasonably likely that a POSA would have found it obvious to modify Bodor’s method to arrive at steps (iii) and (iv) of claim 36. We also find that the preliminary record, on balance, supports Petitioner’s contention that the POSA would have reasonably expected success in modifying the art to arrive at the subject matter of claim 36. Bodor discloses a method for treating MS with administration of oral cladribine and provides further guidance for adjusting the dosage or duration as needed to produce a desired therapeutic result. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 22:18–22, 23:15–20, 24:1–9. Stelmasiak further evidences efficacy in 15 See also Ex. 1022, 26:2–8 (teaching that dosages are given with concomitant, continuous clinical evaluations by a skilled practitioner to “determine subsequent therapy” and “evaluating whether to increase, reduce or continue a particular treatment dose”). forms. Ex. 1013, 7. And neither Bodor nor Stelmasiak stands alone; as pointed out by Petitioner and Dr. Miller, several studies predating the ’947 patent describe the use of cladribine for treating MS, and such studies inform the POSA’s background knowledge—a necessary consideration in any obviousness analysis. See Pet. 19–21, 44; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–49, 115; Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he knowledge of such an artisan is part of the store of public knowledge that must be consulted when considering whether a claimed invention would have been obvious.”). Indeed, many of these studies are incorporated by reference into Bodor. Ex. 1022, 22:27–23:6 (incorporating, e.g., Romine (Ex. 1031) and Rice (Ex. 1018), after teaching that “various dosage amounts and dosing regimens have been reported in the literature for use in the treatment of multiple sclerosis”).” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“interpreted to resolve Petitioner’s challenge. Patent Owner’s interpretation is broader and encompasses Petitioner’s interpretation. Nevertheless, to address the arguments made and give guidance for trial, we determine that the weight of the evidence on this preliminary record supports Patent Owner’s interpretation, and we conclude that the dosing of cladribine given during the “maintenance period” can be same as or lower than the total dose given during the induction period. We explain below. First, the language of the claims supports Patent Owner’s interpretation. Claim 36 expressly recites that the total dose reached at the end of the induction period (step (i)) “is from about 1.7 mg/kg to about 3.5 mg/kg.” See supra Section II(D). Claim 36, step (iii), recites that the total dose of cladribine reached at the end of the maintenance period “is about 1.7 mg/kg.” The plain language of claim 36, thus, indicates that the cladribine dosing given during the induction period and the maintenance period can be the same—each “about 1.7 mg/kg.” Claim 36 also encompasses regimens where the maintenance period dosing (e.g., 1.7 mg/kg) is lower compared to the induction period dosing (e.g., 3.5 mg/kg). But the plain language of the claims does not require a lower total dose in the maintenance period. Petitioner’s construction narrows the claims and, in effect, asks us to rewrite the lower bound of the range recited in claim 36’s induction period step to be some value higher than “about 1.7 mg/kg.” We decline to do so.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“reasonably likely to prevail in establishing that claim 36 would have been obvious over Bodor and Stelmasiak. We agree with Petitioner’s showing that Bodor teaches a method for treating MS by orally administering cladribine tablets over a two-month induction period at a total dose of between 100 mg to 140 mg (equivalent to 1.4–2.0 mg/kg for the average patient) and, thus, satisfies claim 36’s preamble14 and step (i). See, e.g., Pet. 45–49. Bodor also expressly teaches such an induction period is followed by a ten-month cladribine-free period—meeting claim 36’s step (ii) (reciting a cladribine-free period of between about 8–10 months), as argued by Petitioner. Id. at 49–50; Ex. 1022, 23:15–20. Although Bodor does not explicitly describe a subsequent “maintenance period” or a secondary cladribine-free period, we find it logical, credible, and consistent with Dr. Miller’s testimony, that a POSA would have understood Bodor to suggest retreatment and that a POSA would know that retreatment is often needed given the chronic, incurable nature of MS. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 86–87, 100–102 (testifying that a POSA would have thought to readminister cladribine according to Bodor’s initial treatment regimen, disclosed as suitable for MS treatment, and optimize if 13 This paragraph is a high-level summary of Patent Owner’s argument (Prelim. Resp. 1–3, 51); we discuss Patent Owner’s argument in more detail in our analysis below but summarize here to reduce repetition. 14 We need not determine whether the preamble is limiting because, at this stage, there is no dispute that it is taught or suggested in the asserted art. supporting why it would have been routine and obvious to “tailor” the dosage, including by starting with a lower dose and “step-wise” increase it until a desired therapeutic effect is achieved. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 24:1–9;15 Ex. 1002 ¶ 93. The POSA would have also been aware, from at least Stelmasiak, that it’s possible to give lower amounts of cladribine in a maintenance phase versus an induction phase, keeping lymphocyte counts in a suppressed state, and providing therapeutic benefits even over extended periods where no cladribine is administered. Ex. 1013, 5–7 (describing a decrease in relapse rate and EDSS improvements over a twenty-four month study period). That, combined with Bodor’s teachings and an expectation that a lower dose and intermittent cladribine-free periods would help manage potential side effects, supports Petitioner’s challenge. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–52, 91, 95, 103. Based on Petitioner’s evidence and reasoning, we find it reasonably likely that a POSA would have found it obvious to modify Bodor’s method to arrive at steps (iii) and (iv) of claim 36. We also find that the preliminary record, on balance, supports Petitioner’s contention that the POSA would have reasonably expected success in modifying the art to arrive at the subject matter of claim 36. Bodor discloses a method for treating MS with administration of oral cladribine and provides further guidance for adjusting the dosage or duration as needed to produce a desired therapeutic result. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 22:18–22, 23:15–20, 24:1–9. Stelmasiak further evidences efficacy in 15 See also Ex. 1022, 26:2–8 (teaching that dosages are given with concomitant, continuous clinical evaluations by a skilled practitioner to “determine subsequent therapy” and “evaluating whether to increase, reduce or continue a particular treatment dose”). forms. Ex. 1013, 7. And neither Bodor nor Stelmasiak stands alone; as pointed out by Petitioner and Dr. Miller, several studies predating the ’947 patent describe the use of cladribine for treating MS, and such studies inform the POSA’s background knowledge—a necessary consideration in any obviousness analysis. See Pet. 19–21, 44; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–49, 115; Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he knowledge of such an artisan is part of the store of public knowledge that must be consulted when considering whether a claimed invention would have been obvious.”). Indeed, many of these studies are incorporated by reference into Bodor. Ex. 1022, 22:27–23:6 (incorporating, e.g., Romine (Ex. 1031) and Rice (Ex. 1018), after teaching that “various dosage amounts and dosing regimens have been reported in the literature for use in the treatment of multiple sclerosis”).” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“weight-based dosing. Prelim. Resp. 29–30. According to Patent Owner, Stelmasiak remarks on there being “no correlation” between the magnitude of lymphocyte reduction and the drug dose expressed per kg of body weight; similarly, Patent Owner cites Stelmasiak’s disclosure that “there was no indication that a ‘good response’ is related to the actual cladribine dose per body weight.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 6–7) (emphasis omitted). We do not agree that this rises to a teaching away. These cited disclosures relate to Stelmasiak’s attempt to explain the observed variance in lymphocyte counts among its patients, and to identify “any factor” that might have differentiated between those patients that were responders versus the non-responders. Ex. 1013, 6–7. Stelmasiak was “unable” to identify such a factor. But Stelmasiak nowhere teaches that expressing dosages in mg/kg and administering those dosages would result in a less effective or ineffective MS treatment. To the contrary, at most, Stelmasiak suggests that doing so would not have changed the results for its study and patient group. We also note that other technical literature of record describes cladribine studies where dosages are expressed in mg/kg form and recognizes a dose-dependent effect, including on the level of lymphocyte reduction. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 91–92 (discussing Rice (Ex. 1018) (noting dose-dependent reduction in lymphocyte counts and lesion volume) and Selby (Ex. 1047)). Patent Owner’s “teaching away” argument is also weakened by Bodor, which, while teaching a regimen based on an alleged “flat” dosing (10 mg/day), defines “effective amount[s]” for MS treatment by referencing dosages expressed on a mg/kg basis—“from about 0.04 to about 1.0 mg/kg/day.” Ex. 1022, 22:17–22, 23:15–20. Whatever distinction Patent Owner seeks to erect between so-called “flat” and “weight-based” dosing is differentiator.” slip op. at 43
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,713,947 - Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00594 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 45–46; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals. Second, we have also considered Mr. Schmandt’s testimony, and he provides no meaningful additional information to support reading Shimizu as Petitioner advocates. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 118, 120–127. In testimony not cited by Petitioner, Mr. Schmandt admits that “Shimizu does not appear to disclose further details about how duration information is specified or stored within its system, or whether such intervals between nodes can be changed.” Id. ¶ 119. This testimony undermines Petitioner’s position that Shimizu’s hypertext nodes include duration information. Mr. Schmandt elaborates in testimony that Petitioner cites, but does not explain: In a real-world implementation of the proposed combination, for example, the display time could have been specified within the node information structure 9 of Shimizu. I note that node information structure 9 in Shimizu also contains display procedure slot 62 (Fig. 6), which points to “a procedure program function used when the node in question is to be displayed on the screen.” (Shimizu, 6:52–55.) Shimizu thus contemplates that node information structure 9 may contain information about how the node will be displayed to the user, and as such, it would have been obvious that durational information could also have been included as part of node information structure 9. This durational amount could have been a default display time specified by the user, or a display time specific to the node in question, as explained above. * * * Shimizu itself clearly contemplates the ability to customize the display of nodes, and as explained above, node information structure 9 (Fig. 6) includes display procedure slot 62 which points to a program function or procedure used to display the node content, thus making clear that node information structure 9 can hold information about how the node will be displayed. Id. ¶¶ 123, 127. Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that Shimizu would need to be modified for its hypertext nodes to include duration information is strong evidence that Shimizu does not disclose hypertext nodes that include duration information. This testimony (from ¶ 123) also suggests that Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times could be included in the procedure program function to which display procedure slot 62 points, rather than in the hypertext node, thereby providing additional evidence Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times are included in structure other than hypertext nodes. See also Ex. 1003, 6:52–55.” slip op. at 27
- BurdenInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 45–46; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals. Second, we have also considered Mr. Schmandt’s testimony, and he provides no meaningful additional information to support reading Shimizu as Petitioner advocates. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 118, 120–127. In testimony not cited by Petitioner, Mr. Schmandt admits that “Shimizu does not appear to disclose further details about how duration information is specified or stored within its system, or whether such intervals between nodes can be changed.” Id. ¶ 119. This testimony undermines Petitioner’s position that Shimizu’s hypertext nodes include duration information. Mr. Schmandt elaborates in testimony that Petitioner cites, but does not explain: In a real-world implementation of the proposed combination, for example, the display time could have been specified within the node information structure 9 of Shimizu. I note that node information structure 9 in Shimizu also contains display procedure slot 62 (Fig. 6), which points to “a procedure program function used when the node in question is to be displayed on the screen.” (Shimizu, 6:52–55.) Shimizu thus contemplates that node information structure 9 may contain information about how the node will be displayed to the user, and as such, it would have been obvious that durational information could also have been included as part of node information structure 9. This durational amount could have been a default display time specified by the user, or a display time specific to the node in question, as explained above. * * * Shimizu itself clearly contemplates the ability to customize the display of nodes, and as explained above, node information structure 9 (Fig. 6) includes display procedure slot 62 which points to a program function or procedure used to display the node content, thus making clear that node information structure 9 can hold information about how the node will be displayed. Id. ¶¶ 123, 127. Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that Shimizu would need to be modified for its hypertext nodes to include duration information is strong evidence that Shimizu does not disclose hypertext nodes that include duration information. This testimony (from ¶ 123) also suggests that Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times could be included in the procedure program function to which display procedure slot 62 points, rather than in the hypertext node, thereby providing additional evidence Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times are included in structure other than hypertext nodes. See also Ex. 1003, 6:52–55.” slip op. at 27
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Certain terms recited in the challenged claims were construed during prior litigation of the ’451 patent, i.e., an ancestor of the challenged ’819 patent that Petitioner characterizes as “shar[ing] a near-verbatim written description with the ’819 patent”). Ex. 1023 (claim construction order in cases involving Microsoft and Apple); Ex. 2003, 5 (clarification of certain claim constructions on summary judgment); Pet. 8–9. Patent Owner advocates that we adopt such prior constructions in this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 6. Although “Petitioner does not believe express claim construction is necessary at this time,” Petitioner takes the position that its asserted prior art “renders the challenged claims obvious under the district court’s constructions.” Pet. 10. And we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition “presents extensive arguments” that apply the district court’s constructions. See Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Pet. 9–10, 12–20, 33). We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1023, 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 8–10. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 1, 16, 23, and 26, as well as in certain dependent claims, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1023, 2–13; Ex. 2003, 5; Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Third, we construe “interactively variable duration information,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 1, 23, and 26, as “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1023, 22–23; Prelim. Resp. 10–12.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web.” Pet. 7. Petitioner adds that “[s]uch a person could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–18). Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately 3-5 years of professional experience with these topics.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6. In addition, Patent Owner say that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Petitioner supports its proposal with testimony by Dr. Schmandt. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 16. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. See id. (Dr. Schmandt testifying that “Patent Owner’s proposed articulation is not meaningfully different” and that his “analysis, opinions and conclusions . . . would not change if Patent Owner’s articulation were applied”). Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 13
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,606,819 - Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00593 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 22–62 were unpatentable under the asserted §103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 39; see also id. at 45–46 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner
“E. Real Parties in Interest Petitioner identifies Google LLC and YouTube, LLC as real parties in interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies Robocast, Inc., as a real party in interest. Paper 5, 2.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner supports its proposal with testimony by Dr. Schmandt. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 16. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. See id. (Dr. Schmandt testifying that “Patent Owner’s proposed articulation is not meaningfully different” and that his analysis, opinions and conclusions . . . would not change if Patent Owner’s articulation were applied”). Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1123, 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 10–12. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 22 and 46, as well as dependent claim 45, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1123, 2–13; Ex. 2107, 5; Prelim. Resp. 9. For purposes of this Decision, we accord all other terms recited in the challenged claims their plain and ordinary meaning. See Ex. 1123, 17–20, 26–29 (court adopting plain and ordinary meaning of “plurality of accessible resources,” “content,” “without requiring user input,” “in accordance with said show structure,” “providing,” and “search results”); see Prelim. Resp. 8 (Patent Owner advocating that “any additional claim language be[] accorded its plain and ordinary meaning”).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,965,932 - Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00592 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 and 63–67 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 42; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals. Second, we have also considered Mr. Schmandt’s testimony, and he provides no meaningful additional information to support reading Shimizu as Petitioner advocates. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119, 121–128. In testimony not cited by Petitioner, Mr. Schmandt admits that “Shimizu does not appear to disclose further details about how duration information is specified or stored within its system, or whether such intervals between nodes can be changed.” Id. ¶ 120. This testimony undermines Petitioner’s position that Shimizu’s hypertext nodes include duration information. Mr. Schmandt elaborates in testimony that Petitioner cites, but does not explain: In a real-world implementation of the proposed combination, for example, the display time could have been specified within the node information structure 9 of Shimizu. I note that node information structure 9 in Shimizu also contains display procedure slot 62 (Fig. 6), which points to “a procedure program function used when the node in question is to be displayed on the screen.” (Shimizu, 6:52-55.) Shimizu thus contemplates that node information structure 9 may contain information about how the node will be displayed to the user, and as such, it would have been obvious that durational information could also have been included as part of node information structure 9. This durational amount could have been a default display time specified by the user, or a display time specific to the node in question, as explained above. * * * Shimizu itself clearly contemplates the ability to customize the display of nodes, and as explained above, node information structure 9 (Fig. 6) includes display procedure slot 62 which points to a program function or procedure used to display the node content, thus making clear that node information structure 9 can hold information about how the node will be displayed. Id. ¶¶ 124, 128. Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that Shimizu would need to be modified for its hypertext nodes to include duration information is strong evidence that Shimizu does not disclose hypertext nodes that include duration information. This testimony (from ¶ 124) also suggests that Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times could be included in the procedure program function to which display procedure slot 62 points, rather than in the hypertext node, thereby providing additional evidence Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times are included in structure other than hypertext nodes. See also Ex. 1003, 6:52–55.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web.” Pet. 6–7. Petitioner adds that “[s]uch a person could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–17). Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately 3-5 years of professional experience with these topics.” Prelim. Resp. 6. In addition, Patent Owner say that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Petitioner supports its proposal with testimony by Mr. Schmandt. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 16. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. See id. (Mr. Schmandt testifying that “Patent Owner’s proposed articulation is not meaningfully different” and that his “analysis, opinions and conclusions . . . would not change if Patent Owner’s articulation were applied”). Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1023, 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 10–12. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 1 and 63, as well as in certain dependent claims, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1023, 2–13; Ex. 2007, 5; Prelim. Resp. 9. Third, we construe “interactively variable duration information,” which is recited in each of challenged claims 1, 11, 12, and 64, as “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1023, 22–23; Prelim. Resp. 12–15.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 42; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals.” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,965,932 - Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00591 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 22–36 and 39–45 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted obviousness grounds would succeed.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 42–43; see also id. at 48 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). We agree with Patent Owner. In its Summary of the Invention, Shimizu describes “mak[ing] it possible to build with ease an application program illustratively causing the display of the nodes to be switched in a specific order and at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1103, with the predetermined intervals being included in the application program, rather than the hypertext nodes. Similarly, in its Description of the Related Art, Shimizu describes “mak[ing] it possible to create an application program that may be displayed on the screen by reading, from primary or secondary storage and within a predetermined time, the node information held by the nodes that are linked sequentially starting from a particular node.” Id. at 3:12–16 (emphasis added). This passage, too, is better read as disclosing that the predetermined times are included in the application program, rather than the hypertext nodes. Neither of Petitioner’s cited passages states that the hypertext nodes include predetermined intervals/times.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“1 Petitioner filed a paper explaining its basis for filing multiple petitions challenging the ’451 patent and arguing that we should not exercise discretion to deny one of the petitions pursuant to the guidance in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) at 59 (“Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.”). Paper 3. Patent Owner filed an objection to Petitioner’s filing of multiple petitions, arguing that we should deny one of them pursuant to the Trial Practice Guide’s guidance. Paper 8. Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach whether multiple petitions are appropriate to challenge the ’451 patent.” slip op. at 3
- Parallel petitionsNot reached
“1 Petitioner filed a paper explaining its basis for filing multiple petitions challenging the ’451 patent and arguing that we should not exercise discretion to deny one of the petitions pursuant to the guidance in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) at 59 (“Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.”). Paper 3. Patent Owner filed an objection to Petitioner’s filing of multiple petitions, arguing that we should deny one of them pursuant to the Trial Practice Guide’s guidance. Paper 8. Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach whether multiple petitions are appropriate to challenge the ’451 patent.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web,” and “could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 13–18). Patent Owner, without citing evidence, contends that a skilled artisan “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems”; “would also have approximately 3–5 years of professional experience with these topics”; and “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and which is supported by expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). However, we do not see a substantial difference between the parties’ proposals. Thus, our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,155,451 - Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00590 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–21, 37, and 38 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“16, 5:11–14) describes the hypertext nodes as including the predetermined times or predetermined intervals (what Petitioner argues is the duration). As Patent Owner argues, “even if these ‘predetermined times’ or ‘predetermined intervals’ could be considered relevant default duration parameters, the Petition fails to prove that they would be included within Shimizu’s hypertext nodes—i.e., the putative claimed ‘nodes’ —as the governing claim construction expressly requires.” Prelim. Resp. 45; see also id. at 58–59 (“[T]he passages relied on do not provide any specifics as to how duration information would be implemented. Instead, they are merely speculative and aspirational statements, postulating only about what is ‘possible.’ . . . [I]t is not sufficient for Shimizu to simply teach a time interval between nodes. Rather, . . . the node itself must ‘include . . . the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.’ The Petition fails to provide any argument or evidence demonstrating that the described predetermined intervals are included in Shimizu’s nodes.” (quoting Ex. 1023, 16 (emphasis Patent Owner’s))).” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web,” and “could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–18).” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The Microsoft court provided reasoned constructions, which Patent Owner contends that we should adopt. Ex. 1023. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term Commission, that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). Petitioner does not allege any error in the Microsoft court’s decision or provide any alternative constructions. We adopt the Microsoft court’s constructions of “show structure of nodes” and “nodes” for purposes of this Decision. Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“16, 5:11–14) describes the hypertext nodes as including the predetermined times or predetermined intervals (what Petitioner argues is the duration). As Patent Owner argues, “even if these ‘predetermined times’ or ‘predetermined intervals’ could be considered relevant default duration parameters, the Petition fails to prove that they would be included within Shimizu’s hypertext nodes—i.e., the putative claimed ‘nodes’ —as the governing claim construction expressly requires.” Prelim. Resp. 45; see also id. at 58–59 (“[T]he passages relied on do not provide any specifics as to how duration information would be implemented. Instead, they are merely speculative and aspirational statements, postulating only about what is ‘possible.’ . . . [I]t is not sufficient for Shimizu to simply teach a time interval between nodes. Rather, . . . the node itself must ‘include . . . the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.’ The Petition fails to provide any argument or evidence demonstrating that the described predetermined intervals are included in Shimizu’s nodes.” (quoting Ex. 1023, 16 (emphasis Patent Owner’s))).” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,155,451 - Snap Inc. v. You Map Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 31, 2023 · IPR2022-00568 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Feldman and Jackson, or Feldman, Jackson, and Rush; the contingent motion to amend is granted.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus two years’ work or research experience with location-based content delivery and/or visualization.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19– experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Shamos, testifies that he “generally agree[s]” with Petitioner’s proposed articulation, and provides substantially the same expression of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Shamos Decl. ¶¶ 30–31. In this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Although Patent Owner appears to argue that applying the preference factors to a general score does not encompass weighting the general score’s components (see, e.g., id. at 10–12; Sur-reply 13–16), this is not reflected in Patent Owner’s proposed construction (PO Resp. 12). Patent Owner’s construction provides no limitation on how the preference factors are applied to a general score. See id. To the extent Patent Owner argues that the phrase “applied to,” as recited in the claim, excludes such component-based weighting, we disagree. Rather, the record better aligns with Petitioner’s argument that “applied to” involves a linear combination of values, which could be the values of the general score’s components. See Pet. 30–31. Petitioner’s position is supported by the plain language of the claim, the ’727 patent’s discussion of weighted aggregation, and Mr. William’s testimony—all of which indicate that weighting the component scores is encompassed by claim 1. As for the plain language, the claim does not define how the factors are “applied to” the general score. Rather, the claim only recites that they are. In the context of the claim, the preference factors are applied to the general score. Patent Owner does not dispute this. PO Resp. 12. Claim 1 further recites that the customized score is based on the application of the preference factors to the general score. Ex. 1001, 23:14–27. We note that the generate the combined ranking, which is then used for the recited selection. Beyond that, the claim does not specify how the two rankings are used or how the combined ranking must be generated. Thus, under the claim’s plain language, the customized score can be used to rank the posts and is based on the general score. Id.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“adequately supported. We find that Mr. William’s declaration is adequately supported. This is not case where an expert “does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Rather, Mr. Williams adequately supports his testimony about the second preference factor with reasoning based on Jackson’s teachings about how the social-network distance is used to weight the global score. See, e.g., Williams Decl. ¶ 133 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 4A, 16:23–25, 58–60). weighting criteria can be used together. Id. ¶¶ 147–149 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:57–44:22, 5:53–58, 9:54–67, 13:17–22, 17:47–67). Mr. Williams’s analysis relies on Jackson’s discussion of using multiple factors to score a post. Ex. 1006, 17:47–55, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147; see also Pet. 42–43; Reply 9. Mr. Williams also cites Jackson’s discussion of how social-network distance and geographic distance can be used together. Williams Decl. ¶ 147 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:57–4:22). We agree with Petitioner that Jackson adequately supports this part of Mr. Williams’s analysis. Reply 7–9. Specifically, Jackson discloses that a determination may use social-network distance to “modify the criteria” that it uses to provide posts to users. Ex. 1006, 3:66–4:1, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Jackson further explains how geographic distance can be used in addition to other criteria: “Transmitting the post to the second computing device may be dependent upon determining that the criteria is met and determining that the posting location is within the threshold distance.” Id. at 4:19–22 (emphasis added), cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. This is consistent with Jackson’s teaching that a post may be recommended based on several factors and for several reasons. Id. at 17:47–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Also, Jackson explains how the global score, which Petitioner mapped to the recited “general score,” is used to generate a post’s score: “[A] particular post’s global score . . . is multiplied by, divided by, or summed with a distance between” a user and the post’s author. Id. at 9:54–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 148. Jackson weights a post’s global score against a position of the posts author in a social graph. Id. at 9:25–53. Mr. Williams testifies that it is obvious and conventional to generate the modified scores embodiment. Williams Decl. ¶ 144. This is supported by Jackson. In another example cited by Petitioner, Jackson multiplies a post’s global score by a geographic distance to generate a personal score. Id. at 21:60–22:5, cited in Pet. 37, 39, 43. Thus, Petitioner has shown Jackson teaches or suggests applying two different sets of preference factors to a post’s global score. Pet. 41 (citing Williams Decl. ¶ 144). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that neither Petitioner nor” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that Jackson adequately supports this part of Mr. Williams’s analysis. Reply 7–9. Specifically, Jackson discloses that a determination may use social-network distance to “modify the criteria” that it uses to provide posts to users. Ex. 1006, 3:66–4:1, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Jackson further explains how geographic distance can be used in addition to other criteria: “Transmitting the post to the second computing device may be dependent upon determining that the criteria is met and determining that the posting location is within the threshold distance.” Id. at 4:19–22 (emphasis added), cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. This is consistent with Jackson’s teaching that a post may be recommended based on several factors and for several reasons. Id. at 17:47–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Also, Jackson explains how the global score, which Petitioner mapped to the recited “general score,” is used to generate a post’s score: “[A] particular post’s global score . . . is multiplied by, divided by, or summed with a distance between” a user and the post’s author. Id. at 9:54–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 148. Jackson weights a post’s global score against a position of the posts author in a social graph. Id. at 9:25–53. Mr. Williams testifies that it is obvious and conventional to generate the modified scores embodiment. Williams Decl. ¶ 144. This is supported by Jackson. In another example cited by Petitioner, Jackson multiplies a post’s global score by a geographic distance to generate a personal score. Id. at 21:60–22:5, cited in Pet. 37, 39, 43. Thus, Petitioner has shown Jackson teaches or suggests applying two different sets of preference factors to a post’s global score. Pet. 41 (citing Williams Decl. ¶ 144).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,616,727 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,616,727 - PTAB · Aug 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00546 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 9–11, 13, 18, 19, and 28–30; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under each asserted Ley and Newman anticipation and obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Dr. Quackenbush, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had: 1) an advanced degree (such as an M.D. or the equivalent of a Ph.D. in a life or physical sciences, engineering, or mathematics discipline) . . . 2) an understanding of various sequencing and next generation sequencing methods, sample preparation methods, targeted enrichment methods, bioinformatics methods for interpreting sequencing data, and methods for identifying genetic variants in a sample . . . . technology to conditions associated with nucleic acid variation, such as cancer, non-invasive prenatal testing, and transplant rejection . . . [and] 4) an understanding of cancer biology as it relates to mutations associated with tumor diagnosis, progression, and treatment, as well as awareness of the various types of mutations that can occur in and influence the course of a patient’s cancer. Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1061 ¶ 37) (numbering added). Patent Owner does not presently challenge Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 9. Based on the record before us, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill indicated in the cited references and the problems addressed in the ’611 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we provisionally adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In general, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Moreover, “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Considering the record before us, the preamble of claim 1 merely recites a purpose or intended use for the claimed method. In general, step (a) in the body of claim 1 entails obtaining sequence data from at least one biological sample from a subject. In step (b) the sequence data is used in to identify a set of genetic variants present in the biological sample. Step (c) entails creating a probe set corresponding to identified genetic variants. In step (d) the probe set is used to selectively enrich or amplify those variants if present in a second biological sample from the same or related individual, and thereby create a sequencing library. This library is sequenced in step (e) to identify the presence or absence of at least a subset of the genetic variants identified in step (b). As such, steps (a) through (e) define a complete invention, with the preamble merely stating a 4 To the extent Patent Owner maintains that the preamble is both limiting and distinguishes over the applied prior art, Patent Owner should clearly and explicitly identify during trial how it proposes the preamble should be construed—identifying evidentiary support for such construction according to well-established precedents. out the positively recited steps of the claim. As such, we do not presently view the preamble of claim 1 to be limiting and accord it no patentable weight.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“nucleic acid probe molecules” Claim step 1(c) recites “obtaining a probe set comprising a plurality of nucleic acid probe molecules . . . configured to selectively enrich or amplify sequences.” Relying on the testimony of Dr. Quackenbush and disclosure of the ’611 patent, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the claimed ‘nucleic acid probe molecules’ include PCR primers, hybrid capture baits, and other such nucleic acid probe molecules for selectively amplifying or enriching sequences.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1061 ¶ 98; Ex. 1001, 4:54–55, 5:16–18, 6:64–67). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not address the meaning of “nucleic acid probe molecules.” Although the term is not presently contested, Petitioner’s definition is reasonable in light of the present record, and we provisionally adopt it for clarity. slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,450,611 - PTAB · Aug 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00545 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9, 13–19, and 21–29 on all three grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’783 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on each of the grounds raised in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); see also Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26, 2018) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial) (“Guidance”). C. Real Parties-in-Interest” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Dr. Quackenbush, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had: 1) an advanced degree (such as an M.D. or the equivalent of a Ph.D. in a life or physical sciences, engineering, or mathematics discipline) . . . 2) an understanding of various sequencing and next generation sequencing methods, sample preparation methods, targeted enrichment methods, bioinformatics methods for interpreting sequencing data, and methods for identifying genetic variants in a sample . . . . 3) an understanding of clinical applications of sequencing technology to conditions associated with nucleic acid variation, such as cancer, non-invasive prenatal testing, and transplant rejection . . . [and] 4) an understanding of cancer biology as it relates to mutations associated with tumor diagnosis, progression, and treatment, as well as awareness of the various types of mutations that can occur in and influence the course of a patient’s cancer. Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 35) (numbering added). Patent Owner does not presently challenge Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 11. Based on the record before us, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill indicated in the cited references and the problems addressed in the ’783 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we provisionally adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In general, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Moreover, “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Considering the record before us, the preamble of claim 1 merely recites a purpose or intended use for the claimed method. In general, steps (a) through (c) in the body of claim 1 require the use of “a personalized probe set” to identify the presence or absence of genetic variants in a subject, whereupon this information is used to generate a report in step (d). We presently read the body of claim 1 to define a 7 Pointing to isolated passages in the Specification, Patent Owner further contends that, “methods that existed at the time of invention were specific to a particular disease or cancer rather than personalized to a specific subject’s family genetics,” whereas the claimed method “is directed to personalized genetic testing and is ‘better focused on the personal characteristics of the subject.’” Prelim. Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:37–47, 31:27–28). We find this argument confusing, as we do not presently read the challenged claims as limited to a “subject’s family genetics.” 8 To the extent Patent Owner maintains that the preamble is both limiting and distinguishes over the applied prior art, Patent Owner should clearly and explicitly identify during trial how it proposes the preamble should be construed—identifying evidentiary support for such construction according to well-established precedents. complete invention, with the preamble merely stating a purpose or intended use, or, in another sense, simply the result of carrying out the positively recited steps of the claim. As such, we do not presently view the preamble of claim 1 to be limiting and accord it no patentable weight.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“2) “nucleic acid probe molecules” Claim 1 recites the use of “nucleic acid probe molecules . . . configured to selectively enrich or amplify sequences.” Relying on the testimony of Dr. Quackenbush and disclosure of the ’783 patent, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the claimed ‘nucleic acid probe molecules’ include PCR primers, hybrid capture baits, and other such nucleic acid probe molecules for selectively amplifying or enriching sequences.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 95; Ex. 1001, 4:60–61, 5:23–25, 7:5–8, 7:25–26). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not address the meaning of “nucleic acid probe molecules.” Although the term is not presently contested, Petitioner’s definition is reasonable in light of the present record, and we provisionally adopt it for clarity.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,299,783 - PTAB · Aug 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00455 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–29 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Perego and JESD79-2 obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”), weigh in favor of denying institution in view of the district court litigation. Prelim. Resp. 53–56. A Memorandum from Director Vidal titled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)6 provides that “the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure 9. Petitioner has submitted such a stipulation for all claims in this proceeding, which are all of the claims of the ’215 patent. Ex. 1093; Paper 8 at 1; Paper 9 at 1. Thus, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In evaluating arguments under Section 325(d), we use a two-part framework, determining, first, “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). If either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, we then determine “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Id.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On this record, we are sufficiently persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Perego and JESD79-2. As Petitioner correctly points out (Pet. 32), Perego discloses using DDR2 memory devices. Ex. 1071, 10:56–59 (“Other memory devices may be implemented on module 400, for example, Double Data Rate 2 (DDR2) DRAM devices and Synchronous DRAM (SDRAM) devices.”). On this record, we find this teaching to use DDR2 sufficiently supports Petitioner’s rationale to combine Perego with JESD79-2, which is the JEDEC DDR2 SDRAM Specification. Ex. 1064, 1 (cover page); see also Prelim. Resp. 44 (parenthetical noting that “JESD79-2 is a specification for individual DDR2 SDRAMs”). As to Patent Owner’s argument that Rambus memories lack a chip select network (Prelim. Resp. 25–26), the reference on which Patent Owner relies discloses that chip select information is still used in the particular Rambus devices described. See Ex. 1069, 11 (“[I]n the Rambus bus organization, all addresses, commands, data, and chip-select information are sent on the same bus lines.”), 12 (“[T]he example system uses a total of nine (9) lines to carry all necessary information, including addresses, commands, chip-select information, and data.”). Thus, on this record, Patent Owner’s focus on the lack of a chip select network, which is not recited in the claims of the ’215 patent, appears misplaced. We address Patent Owner’s more specific arguments below in the discussion of individual claim recitations.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Claim 21 is method claim and recites similar structure in the preamble. Petitioner cites this claim language in support of its position that a rank can have just one memory device. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1001, 37:32–38 (portion of claim reproduced above)). On this record, we determine that the claim language supports Petitioner’s position. Claim 1 recites “at least one first memory integrated circuit in the first rank and at least one second memory integrated circuit in the second rank.” This language is met if there is one memory integrated circuit in each rank because “at least one” includes just one. On this record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that this claim language “do[es] not define the term ‘rank’” but, rather, “provide[s] context that a claimed ‘buffer’ can be, but need not be, coupled to multiple memory devices in the rank.” See Prelim. Resp. 9–10. Claim 1 recites “a buffer coupled between the at least one first memory integrated circuit and the memory bus, and between the at least one second memory integrated circuit and the memory bus,” and it further recites “enabl[ing] communication of the first data burst between the at least one first memory integrated circuit and the memory controller through the buffer” and “enabl[ing] communication of the second data burst between the at least one second memory integrated circuit and the memory controller through the buffer.” If there is only one memory device in each rank, then the buffer will only be connected to the one memory device in each rank. If two memory devices are the “at least one first memory integrated circuit in the first rank” then the buffer would be “coupled between the [two memory devices] and the memory bus.”” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,858,215
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.