- Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01219 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over Rae, Sulmar, and Falcone; the motion to amend with substitute claims 33–57 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“We disagree that Patent Owner has introduced evidence reasonably bringing into question the accuracy of GTL’s identification of the real parties-in-interest in its Petition. First, in its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner makes conclusory assertions, without explaining how any evidence of record supports Patent Owner’s contentions, such as that the “private equity firm American Securities . . . has the ability to control GTL in general and in [this] proceeding[].” PO Resp. 41 (citing generally Exs. 2002–2011, Discovery Motion, Prelim. Resp.); id. at 41–43 (asserting that its evidence “reasonably brings into question the accuracy” of Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest in its Petition).” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeNot reached
“Similar to the posture of Petitioner’s First Motion to Exclude, the current situation does not require us to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude. See Discovery Order, 13 (indicating that Patent Owner’s evidence was insufficient, “even without excluding Patent Owner’s supporting evidence”). According to Petitioner, the two declarations filed by Patent Owner in support of its Motion for Additional Discovery allegedly” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The subject limitation of claim 1 is “determining whether a charge for message service using message service communication protocol can be billed to the cellular telephone.” As we discussed in the Institution Decision, the Specification discusses two determinations, and we are not persuaded that both determinations must be satisfied to satisfy claim 1. See Dec. 16–17. As understood at the time of the invention of the ’118 Patent, and as understood today, the physical cellular phone may receive a message or call, but does not receive a charge, per se. Patent Owner has not provided any examples of mobile devices that “do their own billing,” i.e., that internally bill a charge and/or process payments, and we are unaware of such mobile devices. Rather, the charges are handled by a mobile carrier, and can follow a myriad of billing arrangements, which can be purely business agreements, subject to negotiation and not subject to technical requirements. We credit the testimony of Dr. Forys, providing that the ’118 Patent focuses on the ability to charge the phone when a message is transmitted to it, not on the ability of the phone to receive a message. Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 25–28. Furthermore, we determine that focusing on technical capabilities of the called party’s phone 21 ignores the role of the carrier, which is the essential entity in the billing process. As such, we maintain our interpretation of the “determining” step of claim 1, and apply it in our consideration of the ground below.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Leonard J. Forys, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a [Bachelor of Science] B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in communications systems, or comparable industry experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30; see Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Bradley O. Walton, contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field and at least three years of academic or industry experience in telecommunications 25 systems.” Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 37. We determine the differences in the declarants’ assertions to be negligible and that both definitions are consistent with the ’118 Patent and the referenced prior art, and we adopt Dr. Forys’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,626,118 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,626,118 - Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01221 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated combinations of Falcone, Jiang, Bangor, and Apple.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Thus, Patent Owner has not introduced evidence reasonably bringing into question Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not support a determination that American Securities had a role in funding or controlling this proceeding, or could have exercised control over this proceeding. For these reasons, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s real party-in-interest identification at the time of filing the Petition remains valid.” slip op. at 12
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“For these additional reasons, we determine that, even without excluding Exhibits 2006 and 2011, the preponderance of evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2006 and 2011 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsOther
“Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Amend (Paper 27), to which Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 32) and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 34). Subsequently, however, Patent Owner filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 46), making consideration of those papers pertaining to claim amendments moot.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Leonard J. Forys, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a [Bachelor of Science] B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in communications systems, or comparable industry experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 34; see Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 34). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Bradley O. Walton, contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field and at least three years of academic or industry experience in telecommunications systems.” Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 38. We determine the differences in the declarants’ assertions to be negligible, that both definitions are consistent with the ’068 Patent and the referenced prior art, and we adopt Dr. Forys’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 8,489,068 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,489,068 - Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2016 · PGR2015-00013 · APJ Kevin F Turner · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 7–19 were held unpatentable as obvious; claims 5, 6, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Reinhold, Walters, and Dudovich.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“We found Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8–10; Dec. 8. First, we found the mere existence of the relationship between Petitioner and a parent company (American Securities) to be insufficient to demonstrate a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8. In addition, we determined the evidence did not show that American Securities and Petitioner have “corporate boundaries that were inextricably intertwined.” Discovery Order 8. Second, we found the existence of common directors or employees between American Securities and Petitioner to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue, unless the directors controlled or participated in the filing of the proceedings. Discovery Order 9. We found insufficient evidence that common officers between the American Securities and Petitioner were involved in the filing of the present proceedings or had the ability to direct the filing of the present proceedings. Discovery Order 9. Nor did we find persuasive evidence that American Securities provided any prior art to Petitioner in the instant proceedings. Discovery Order 9.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 1013, 1014 and 1015 is denied. As Patent Owner points out, 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) indicates that “[a]rguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.” We are not persuaded, however, that Petitioner is attempting to incorporate by reference; Exhibits 1013, 1014, and 1015 are cited by Petitioner’s declarant, not incorporated by reference. If Petitioner’s declarant or the cited exhibits contained arguments not made in a paper, we would likely ignore such arguments. In this instance, Petitioner is making of record the documents cited, which is generally laudatory, so that a reader can determine for herself that cited facts are supported. We are not persuaded that the cited exhibits are “irrelevant.” Additionally, we find no support for Patent Owner’s contention that exhibits must be cited by “papers,” and not other exhibits. Many exhibits, such as declarations, prior art references, and deposition transcripts, cite to other exhibits in normal trial practice. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 1013, 1014, and 1015 is denied.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Frank Koperda, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2–5 years of academic or industry experience in the telecommunications industry. Ex. 1002 ¶ 19; see Pet. 5 (asserting level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Stuart J. Lipoff, largely adopts Mr. Koperda’s level of ordinary skill in the art, adding that such artisans should have experience “in the generation of billing statements or cost accounting reports.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 33. We are not persuaded that such billing or accounting experience is necessary “to fully understand the ’280 patent disclosure.” Id. Having reviewed the prior art asserted in this proceeding (see, e.g., Exs. 1003, 1007, 1006, 1008), we also adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art employed by Petitioner’s declarant, where Patent Owner’s declarant acknowledges that his analysis would be the same under Mr. Koperda’s level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2012 ¶ 34.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,855,280 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,855,280 - Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2015-01220 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 and 12–17 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 9–11, and 18–26 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Thus, Patent Owner has not introduced evidence reasonably bringing into question Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not support a determination that American Securities had a role in funding or controlling this proceeding, or could have exercised control over this proceeding. 11 For these reasons, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s real party-in-interest identification at the time of filing the Petition remains valid.” slip op. at 11
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“For these additional reasons, we determine that, even without excluding Exhibits 2006 and 2011, the preponderance of evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2006 and 2011 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“construed also undermine Petitioner’s position. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). On the other hand, a preamble, however, “generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Id. at 809. The only limitations in the body of independent claim 22—the two biometric sensors—are not structurally complete in themselves. Rather, the telephone handset is required to describe a structurally complete invention that includes two biometric sensors. Without the telephone handset as an element, the claim merely recites two unconnected biometric sensors without any structure—a structurally incomplete invention. Furthermore, the telephone handset recited in the preamble does not duplicate the biosensor limitations in the body of the claim. Thus, we conclude that the telephone handset is essential structure and is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. This weighs toward a determination that independent claim 22 requires a telephone handset. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 389 F.3d at 808–09.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner, however, does not acknowledge that both Dr. Beigi and Dr. Caloyannides include electrical engineering as a field of study in the respective level of ordinary skill. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s statement that Dr. Beigi’s proposed “academic requirements do not provide this background. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 34 (Dr. Beigi opining that “one of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSA”) would have a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent or related field”). Because both experts specify electrical engineering as an academic field of study but only Dr. Beigi specifies computer science, we understand the disagreement of the parties to be whether computer science is a relevant academic field of study. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s contention that “bachelor’s level degree in electrical engineering or physics is necessary to understand both the various data/network communication aspects of the claimed invention as well as the mathematics underlying biometric systems.” See PO Resp. 7. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, the invention as claimed recites elements and functions using a high-level of abstraction with little, if any, technical detail regarding “the data/network communication aspects of the claimed invention.” For example, independent claims 1 and 12 recite methods that include broad functional steps of authorizing, continuously monitoring, verifying, and monitoring a biometric training with 30 little, if any, technical detail. Similarly, the call processing system recited in independent claim 13 and the biometric telephone handset recited in independent claim 22 recite elements that perform broad functions with little, if any, technical detail. Thus, the plain language of the claims undermines Patent Owner’s contention that an understanding of “both the various data/network communication aspects of the claimed invention as well as the mathematics underlying biometric system” necessitate an electrical engineering or physics academic degree.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,494,061 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,494,061 - Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 29, 2016 · PGR2015-00014 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–10, and 13–18 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 19–25 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach the required video-communication eligibility query and confirmation.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Thus, Patent Owner has not introduced evidence reasonably bringing into question Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not support a determination that American Securities had a role in funding or controlling this proceeding, or could have exercised control over this proceeding. For these reasons, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s real party-in-interest identification at the time of filing the Petition remains valid.” slip op. at 16
- ExcludeDenied
“Similarly to the posture of Petitioner’s First Motion to Exclude, the current situation does not require us to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude. See Discovery Order, 13 (indicating that Patent Owner’s evidence was insufficient, “even without excluding Patent Owner’s supporting evidence”). According to Petitioner, the two declarations filed by Patent Owner in support of its Motion for Additional Discovery allegedly recount statements made by Petitioner’s CEO during settlement discussions between Patent Owner and GTL. Mot. Exc. 2nd, 1–2.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Petitioner’s declarant, Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D., testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science (or an equivalent field), as well as at least 2–3 years of academic or industry experience in software development (or comparable industry experience). Ex. 1002 ¶ 30; see Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 30) (asserting level of ordinary skill in the art). Dr. Jeffay indicates that he bases his opinion of the level of ordinary skill on the disclosure of the ’525 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶ 30. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Stuart J. Lipoff, adopts Dr. Jeffay’s level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2014 ¶ 36. Having reviewed the prior art asserted in this proceeding (see, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1010, 1012), we also adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art employed by both Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“Furthermore, we credit Dr. Jeffay’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have been able to incorporate Virtanen’s voice-to-video switching in Torgersrud’s computer system. Ex. 1002 ¶ 44. Dr. Jeffay’s testimony relied on “sophistication of software packages to manage audio and video streams on personal devices available in 2014” and identified specific “Software Development Kits” available to develop software for mobile devices. Id. Moreover, he testified that an undergraduate student would have been able to implement the necessary modification and testified that he was aware of a specific example of such a system that one of his undergraduate students developed in 1995. Id. We weigh Dr. Jeffay’s testimony more heavily than Mr. Lipoff’s testimony. Dr. Jeffay’s testimony is based on specific reasons, whereas Mr. Lipoff’s testimony lacks sufficient supporting analysis and is based on a faulty premise that a central communications processing system would need to be inserted in Torgersrud’s system. Compare Ex. 1002 ¶ 44, with Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 63–64 (“I believe a skilled artisan would need to be familiar with communication processing systems of a controlled facility, like in” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 8,929,525 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,929,525 - Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*link CorporationRehearing grantedPTAB · Sep 12, 2016 · IPR2016-00267 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing only insofar as it addressed the request, but denied rehearing overall and maintained denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“public mode,” including specific citations, namely “Ex. 1005 at 16:24-31; 18:2- 8.” See Reh’g Req. 7. Those citations fall short, however, because they were not provided in the Petition. The closest citation provided by Petitioner is “Ex. 1005 at 16:54-17:3,” at page 41 of the Petition. The Board could not have overlooked a detailed explanation or analysis not presented in the Petition. A rehearing request is not a supplemental petition. The petition, itself, must identify “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). “The Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” Id. Petitioner has the responsibility to identify and explain in the petition specific evidence that supports its arguments. We must make our determination regarding institution based on what the Petition actually presented and not what it could have reasonably contained had it been reformulated. In re 5 Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., No. 2015-1300, 2016 WL 3974202, at *10 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016) (holding that the Board is not “free to adopt arguments on behalf of petitioners that could have been, but were not, raised by the petitioner during an IPR”). slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Board is tasked with determining whether a petitioner would be reasonably likely to prevail in demonstrating that at least one of the challenged claims is not patentable in view of the petition filed. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). It is the Petitioner, in its Petition, that must demonstrate whether there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable under the assert ground. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (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 never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 4
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“As such, it is not clear how Petitioner could have relied solely on the public mode of Bulriss when neither the public nor the privacy modes are acknowledged in the Petition. If an understanding of the public mode of Bulriss was important in the context of Petitioner’s case against the claims of the ’816 Patent, no such import or discussion of the public mode was provided in the Petition. The Board is tasked with determining whether a petitioner would be reasonably likely to prevail in demonstrating that at least one of the challenged claims is not patentable in view of the petition filed. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). It is the Petitioner, in its Petition, that must demonstrate whether there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable under the assert ground. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (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 never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“communications” limitation and its proffered motivation to combine Bulriss and Hesse. Reh’g Req. 11–14. We have previously discussed and decided these issues in the Denial of Institution Decision, and we are not persuaded of error in their consideration. Dec. 8–9, 12. As we discussed, the motivation to combine cannot come from the subject patent itself, such that even if “[t]he motivation to combine is therefore explicit in the references” (Reh’g Req. 14), it does not cure the deficiencies of the combination of Bulriss and Hesse provided in the Petition, as discussed in the rest of the Decision. Likewise, the new citations to Bulriss (Reh’g Req. 12), not found in the Petition, cannot be used to show that we misapprehended the arguments supplied in the Petition or that we used unreasonable judgment in determining that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to provide scheduling of video visits in the context of Bulriss, in view of Hesse, for the reasons supplied by Petitioner. Dec. 12. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that the Board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence, nor that the Board abused its discretion 6 in determining that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’816 Patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,256,816 - Captioncall, L.L.C. / Sorenson Communications, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00637 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious; Patent Owner’s contingent motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support and indefiniteness.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“admitted that the patented features of voice and revoiced text are responsible for ‘giv[ing] the phone back to folks with hearing loss.’” PO Resp. 48 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner is offering the statement for the truth that voice and re-voiced text gives the phone back to folks with hearing loss. Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Puzey was discussing the existence of features in his company’s product rather than features in Patent Owner’s product does not change that his statement is offered as proof regarding an alleged long-felt need for the features. Accordingly, his testimony is hearsay. slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“art is telecommunication systems. Thus, a [POSA] is a person familiar with at least that technology by way of background and/or experience.” CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00549, Paper 71, 13 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015); see also CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00780, Paper 35, 9 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015) (reaffirming our finding in IPR2013- 00549). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree” with that definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and that, “without waiving the foregoing objection and reserving all rights,” states that it will “appl[y]” our prior definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art “for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 3. By not setting forth arguments advocating a particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and by applying our prior definition, Patent Owner has waived arguments for any other definition. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as expressed by its declarant, Mr. Occhiogrosso. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 26–27. This person typically has “a bachelor’s degree” slip op. at 35
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“understand a “communication link,” as claimed, to refer to the “communication line” described in the specification. In particular, the link is “intended not only to apply to a traditional land-line . . . but also to all equivalents that offer similar functionality.” Id. at 8:60–63. A link could be “a portion of the bandwidth” of a particular connection, such that a single mode of connection (e.g., IP) could carry out two types of communication (voice and text), with each type corresponding to a different “communication link.” See id. at 8:44–47, 8:63–65. For example, as explained in the ’838 patent, “[e]ach of the telephone lines could be . . . a portion of the bandwidth of an ISDN or DSL service.” Id. at 8:53–65. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “communication link” as “any communication session, protocol, link, connection, or path distinguishable from [another] communication link[].”” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“3. Combination of References As we discussed above, Petitioner’s combination takes the two-line” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 8,908,838 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,908,838 - Captioncall, L.L.C. / Sorenson Communications, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00636 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable as obvious over the identified reference combinations; the contingent motion to amend substitute claims 30–43 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“Accordingly, we accord Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony little weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1368 (indicating the Board is entitled to weigh declaration testimony).” slip op. at 62
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“E. Level of Ordinary Skill In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“1. Terms Construed in Prior Proceedings Petitioner suggests that the terms “assisted user” and “hearing user,”” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Engelke ’405, and Mukherji would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitations in claims 1–7 and 10–29, our inquiry continues because “[a] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. In other words, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 8,917,822 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,917,822 - Micron Technology, Inc. / SK Hynix, Inc. v. Elm 3ds Innovations, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00703 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, including for failure to establish the required partitioned control layer.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“4. Conclusion “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (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”)); see also Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., No. 2015-1693, 2016 WL 2620512, at *6 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) (“It was [Petitioner]’s burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”) (internal quotation marks removed). Thus, Petitioner must explain how the combination of Hsu and Sakuta would have rendered the independent claims 1 and 5 unpatentable. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate sufficiently that Petitioner’s proposed combination of Hsu and Sakuta would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art a control layer of the stacked memory integrated circuit partitioned into a plurality of vertically interconnected circuit block stacks as required by independent claims 1 and 5. Accordingly, after considering the information presented in” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged patent “would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, material science, or equivalent thereof, and at least 3–5 years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., semiconductor processing.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58; see Pet. 6–7 (relying on Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Patent Owner does not offer any contrary explanation regarding who would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged patent. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on our review of the challenged patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the challenged patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“required partitioned circuit control layer of a stacked memory integrated circuit, Petitioner asserts, without further explanation or analysis, that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that the stacked memory integrated circuits disclosed by Hsu, e.g., ROM and SRAM, are often partitioned into a plurality of circuit blocks. Ex. 1002 at ¶147.” Id. at 33 (quoting ¶ 147 of Dr. Franzon’s testimony (Ex. 1002)). Although Petitioner quotes Dr. Franzon’s testimony for support, Dr. Franzon’s testimony is unavailing because it is conclusory. Dr. Franzon’s testimony merely states, without providing further analysis or evidence, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized stacked memory integrated circuits are often partitioned. As such, Dr. Franzon’s testimony does not disclose the facts underlying his conclusion or provide sufficient analysis or evidence to support his conclusion. Accordingly, Dr. Franzon’s testimony is entitled to” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“In referring to “the block-based design” or “the block-based memory design” of Sakuta, Petitioner fails to distinguish between Sakuta’s various embodiments, only one of which even arguably discloses a partitioned control circuit (embodiment shown in Figure 3) for the reasons previously discussed. See id. at 33–34 (discussing embodiments shown in both Figures 1 and 3). This further demonstrates shortcomings in Petitioner’s position relying on Sakuta’s purported “memory circuit design that is partitioned into a plurality of circuit blocks” for a partitioned two-dimensional control circuit. Id. Moreover, Petitioner does not address, much less sufficiently explain, why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined, with Hsu’s threedimensional memory structure, Sakuta’s embodiment that includes a control circuit in the memory block (as shown in Figure 3), rather than Sakuta’s embodiment that includes the memory blocks controlled by a shared control circuit (as shown in Figure 1). See generally id. at 25–30, 35. For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s reasons to” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,791,581 - Micron Technology, Inc. / SK Hynix, Inc. v. Elm 3ds Innovations, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00706 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 5, 12, 36, 54, 78, 113, 116, 133, or 136 were unpatentable as obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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”)); see also Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It was [Petitioner]’s burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner then asserts, without further explanation or analysis, that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that the integrated circuits are often partitioned into a plurality of circuit blocks.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 132 (claim element 1c) 8). Although Petitioner cites Dr. Franzon’s testimony regarding how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Bertin ’945, Dr. Franzon’s testimony is unavailing because it is conclusory. Dr. Franzon’s testimony merely states, without providing further analysis or evidence, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the integrated circuits are often partitioned into a plurality of circuit blocks. As such, Dr. Franzon’s testimony does not disclose the facts underlying his conclusion or provide sufficient analysis or evidence to support his conclusion. Accordingly, Dr. Franzon’s testimony is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s reliance on Sakuta’s two-dimensional memory circuit design for the requisite partitioned control layer, however, does not distinguish sufficiently between Sakuta’s embodiment with a two-dimensional matrixed memory circuit that shares a control circuit (as shown in Sakuta’s Figure 1) and Sakuta’s embodiment with a two-dimensional matrixed memory circuit in which each memory block includes a control circuit (as shown in Sakuta’s Figure 3). See id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1067, Abstract, 5:52–54 (discussing embodiment shown in Fig. 1), 8:49–60 (discussing embodiment shown in Fig. 3), Fig. 3). Thus, Petitioner relies both on Sakuta’s embodiment in which the control circuit arguably seems to be partitioned (Figure 3) and on Sakuta’s embodiment in which the control circuit is not partitioned (Figure 1). See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 6:34–35 (indicating the “control circuit” is the “timing and address generator of FIG. 1”), 8:49– 60 (indicating Fig. 3 shows “each memory block of this embodiment” as being “equipped with . . . the control circuit”). Petitioner’s reliance on both embodiments—only one of which arguably has a partitioned control 15 circuit—undermines Petitioner’s position that its proposed combination of Bertin ’945 and Sakuta would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the required partitioned control layer of a stacked memory integrated circuit. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Petitioner’s proposed combination of Bertin ’945 and Sakuta would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the required partitioned circuit control layer of a stacked memory integrated circuit.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“In referring to “the block-based design” or “the block-based memory design” of Sakuta, Petitioner fails to distinguish between Sakuta’s various embodiments, only one of which even arguably discloses a partitioned control circuit (embodiment shown in Figure 3) for the reasons previously 16 discussed. See id. at 31 (discussing embodiments shown in both Figures 1 and 3). This further demonstrates shortcomings in Petitioner’s position relying on Sakuta’s purported “memory circuit design that is partitioned into a plurality of circuit blocks” for a partitioned two-dimensional control circuit. Id. Moreover, Petitioner does not address, much less sufficiently explain, why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined, with Bertin ’945’s multichip semiconductor stack, Sakuta’s embodiment that includes a control circuit in the memory block (as shown in Figure 3), rather than Sakuta’s embodiment that includes the memory blocks controlled by a shared control circuit (as shown in Figure 1). See generally id. at 27–29, 32. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s reasons to combine explain how Sakuta would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art a partitioned control circuit.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,791,581
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.