- Offshore Technical Compliance, LLC v. Innovative Pressure Testing, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 28, 2021 · IPR2020-00923 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 were held unpatentable as obvious over BOP California, Wodjenski, and Winters; the revised motion to amend proposing claims 19–35 was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“1 The Petition requested review of claims 1–18, but Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claim 18. Pet. 3; Ex. 2001; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“The patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018). claims on which we instituted trial. Based on the record before us, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claims 1–17 of the ’143 patent are unpatentable; and (2) Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims 19–35 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“B. Testimony of Mr. Anderson Patent Owner contends that the testimony provided by Petitioner’s” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“D. Claim Construction The Board uses “the same claim construction standard that would be” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,207,143 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,207,143 - PTAB · Oct 26, 2021 · IPR2021-00715 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 8, 13–16, and 18 on both obviousness grounds because Roku showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“(see Prelim. Resp. 49), a decision instituting or denying inter partes review in this proceeding is due by October 28, 2021. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)(1). Because the trial date in the parallel district court proceeding is set for roughly six months before the Board’s statutory deadline for issuing a final written decision, this factor weighs in favor of denying institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“at this stage, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Larsson’s system by incorporating encryption as taught in Ortiz, to achieve limitation 8[m] with a reasonable expectation of success. And for all the above reasons, having considered Roku’s arguments and supporting declaratory testimony regarding claim 8 as a whole and Flexiworld’s responsive arguments and evidence, we determine that Roku has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim 8.” slip op. at 34
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience developing software,” and “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–25). Flexiworld does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Because Roku’s uncontested articulation of that level of skill is supported by testimonial evidence and appears reasonable at this stage in light of the subject matter of the ’114 patent, we adopt it for this decision. If Flexiworld contests this articulation at trial, we will consider any evidence that Flexiworld submits, in light of the full trial record.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“dispute the construction of “one or more servers” and “one or more devices.” Pet. 11. But Roku argues that these constructions are irrelevant for this proceeding, and Roku “does not believe that any claim constructions are needed.” Id. Flexiworld also refers to this dispute in the Related Action, but does not propose explicit constructions for these or any other terms. See Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2010). We agree that the meaning of “one or more servers” and “one or more devices” is not pertinent to the outcome of our decision. To the extent any term needs construction, we address the term in the arguments below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,346,114 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00814 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–15, 18–24, 26, 27, and 30–32 because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of success.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, and supplemental briefing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of challenged claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–15, 18–24, 26, 27, and 30–32 of the ’928 patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we deny institution of an inter partes review of the ’928 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and one to two years of experience in the design and development of network communication systems. Alternatively, a POSITA would have a Master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and less years of design and development experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–71). Patent Owner does not present an alternative definition at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 30. We regard Petitioner’s proposed definition as reasonable, and” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner does not propose any claim terms for construction. Pet. 7 (“For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner construes each of the ’928 claim terms as having its ordinary and custom[ary] meaning.”). Although, Petitioner does submit that, “[f]or purposes of this IPR only, Petitioner relies on the claim scope positions Patent Owner has advanced in district court for ‘port definer module.’” Pet. 8. Similarly, Patent Owner argues each claim term should have its ordinary and customary meaning, except that, as in the parallel district court proceeding, the function of alleged means-plus-function term “port definer module” should be construed to be “designating any one physical link of the logical link and examining the designated link of the logical link.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We note that, in the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not appear to identify any structure in the Specification for performing that function. See generally Prelim. Resp. Regardless, we do not find that the express construction of any term is necessary for this decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not explained sufficiently, let alone with particularity, why the skilled artisan, but for hindsight, would have (1) taken Y.1731, which says nothing concerning aggregated physical links with a single logical link to which packets are directed; (2) then turned to the architectural basis for Y.1731, namely “Ethernet specification G.8010/Y.1306”; (3) then turned to standards “IEEE 802.1D, 802.1Q, and 802.3,” which are “account[ed] for” by G.8010/Y.1306, and specifically selected to pursue 802.3 from among those; (4) then, without any reference or indication in Y.1731 itself, turned specifically to standard IEEE 802.3ad within the set of 802.3 standards, and specifically to its disclosure of aggregated physical links with a single logical link; and then (5) upon making all of these connections, understood Y.1731 itself to disclose or teach aggregated physical links with a single logical link, particularly in the context of the Challenged Claims as a whole. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It appears that [the expert] relied on the [] patent itself as her roadmap for putting what she referred to as pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ together.”); Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (“To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.”). Although “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 421), the Federal Circuit has observed that “‘the prejudice of hindsight bias’ often overlooks that the ‘genius of invention is often a combination of known elements which in hindsight seems preordained.’” Polaris Industries, Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,768,928 - PTAB · Oct 13, 2021 · IPR2021-00713 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 19 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“argue that the reason to combine Ikonen and Gu is insufficient. Prelim. Resp. 47–52. However, Patent Owner’s argument misidentifies the proposed combination. While Patent Owner argues that there is no reason “why a POSA would have been motivated to substitute Ikonen’s Bluetooth solution with Gu’s (HTTP and TCP/IP based) UPnP networking framework,” the actual combination appears to be to implement Gu’s UPnP framework on Ikonen’s wireless LAN. Pet. 42 (“UPnP relies on IP networking . . . which a POSA would have known to be compatible with Ikonen’s wireless LAN option.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 140 (Petitioner’s declarant explaining that UPnP could be implemented over a wireless LAN); see also Pet. 40–42 (the section entitled “Motivation to Combine” includes no explicit references to Ikonen’s teaching of Bluetooth, but rather only discusses Ikonen’s wireless LAN). All of Patent Owner’s arguments over the reason to combine focus on Ikonen’s teaching of Bluetooth, rather than Ikonen’s wireless LAN. See Prelim. Resp. 47–52. But, as we view the Petition to clearly set forth a reasonable rationale to combine Gu’s UPnP with Ikonen’s wireless LAN, and to provide evidence in support, Patent Owner’s arguments do not identify any shortcomings that undermine Petitioner’s showing at this stage. We do note that the Petition often refers to both of Ikonen’s teachings of Bluetooth and wireless LAN when discussing Ikonen individually. But, the Petition only refers to Ikonen’s teachings of wireless LAN when discussing the combination with Gu.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“the ’101 provisional for each claim element of claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the ’066 patent. Prelim. Resp. 39–40. In response to Petitioner’s arguments about the prior art status of Yamaguchi (Reply 1–5), Patent Owner offers the testimony of Todor Cooklev, Ph.D. (Ex. 2029) in support. Sur-reply 1–4. Patent Owner also relies on the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002). Sur-reply 2. Based on the current record, and for the reasons discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner that claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the ’066 patent are supported by the ’101 provisional and therefore, Yamaguchi is not prior art.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner
“In essence, Petitioner has offered two positions as to the meaning of “wireless output device” in claim 7; one outlined in the Petition, supported by Petitioner’s declarant, Patent Owner, and Patent Owner’s declarant, and a second position outlined in the Reply that contradicts the Petition and is not supported by either of the declarants.10 It is on the basis of this new claim construction that Petitioner argues that the ’101 provisional does not provide support for this aspect of claim 7. As we reject Petitioner’s new claim construction as unsupported by the evidence, at this stage of the proceeding, it is unnecessary to review Petitioner’s argument that the wireless output device of claim 7 is unsupported by the ’101 provisional based on this claim construction.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,740,066 - PTAB · Oct 7, 2021 · IPR2021-00607 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 14–38 under § 325(d), finding the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and Petitioner failed to show material Examiner error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“[U]nder § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) 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; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. If the petitioner fails 7 to show that the Office erred, the Director may exercise his or her discretion not to institute inter partes review. Id.; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24 (exercising discretion where “Petitioner has not pointed to error by the Examiner”). 1. Part I – whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Fourth, Petitioner argues that, because the subject matter added from Chu ’886 was not included in any of the applications in the ’140 patent’s priority chain before it was added by amendment in the ’138 application and then filed with the U.S. Application No. 13/294,108 (“the ’108 application”), the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’140 patent claims relying on this subject matter for written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, is the date of filing the ’108 application, November 10, 2011. Pet. 14−17. However, the amendments to the ’138 application were proper because, as discussed above, “[w]hen claims were added to the ’138 application that transformed previously non-essential material into allegedly essential material, Patent Owner submitted an amendment to explicitly set forth the material in the specification,” in accordance with the procedure set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(g) (2007) and MPEP § 608.01(p), 8th Ed. Rev. 8 (July 2010). See Prelim. Resp. 26−30. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’777 patent and the applications in the ’140 patent’s priority chain did not properly incorporate by reference Chu ’330 and Chu ’886, or that the examiner erred in entering the amendments that added the subject matter from Chu ’886 to the ’138 application. As such, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims of the ’140 patent is November 10, 2011. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office and that Petitioner fails to show that “the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu 21 ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’140 Patent.” Accordingly, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24.” slip op. at 21
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - PTAB · Oct 7, 2021 · IPR2021-00670 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 14–38 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded that a “graphics controller” is merely a graphics interface in the context of the ’140 patent. As Patent Owner explains, “[t]he ‘graphics controller’ of the ’140 patent has graphics processing functionality, and is not just a connection to a separate component for processing graphics.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s declarant, Marc Levitt, Ph.D., testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a graphics interface is not a graphics controller because a graphics interface is “simply the interface for connecting an external graphics processor to the processor module” and the “graphics interface itself provides no actual graphics processing functionality.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 72−73. We credit Dr. Levitt’s testimony as it is consistent with the Specification and the general knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 19:10−13, Figs. 19, 20; Ex. 3001 (IEEE Dictionary), 3 (defining “interface” as “[a] hardware or software component” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill as articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, this proposal appears to be consistent with the ’140 patent, prior art of record, and the testimony of Dr. Edwards.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“interface in the context of the ’140 patent. As Patent Owner explains, “[t]he ‘graphics controller’ of the ’140 patent has graphics processing functionality, and is not just a connection to a separate component for processing graphics.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s declarant, Marc Levitt, Ph.D., testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a graphics interface is not a graphics controller because a graphics interface is “simply the interface for connecting an external graphics processor to the processor module” and the “graphics interface itself provides no actual graphics processing functionality.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 72−73. We credit Dr. Levitt’s testimony as it is consistent with the Specification and the general knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 19:10−13, Figs. 19, 20; Ex. 3001 (IEEE Dictionary), 3 (defining “interface” as “[a] hardware or software component” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham - PTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2021-00701 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10–18 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we grant the Petition and institute an inter partes review. The Board has not made a final determination regarding the patentability of any claim.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would [have] possess[ed] at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering and 3-5 years of professional experience in computer networks, or a master’s or doctorate and 1-2 years of professional experience in computer networks. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa. Such a person would have been familiar with computer networks and would have been aware of design trends relating to authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA). Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13). At this stage, Patent Owner neither challenges Petitioner’s proposal nor proposes its own specific articulation of a level of ordinary skill in the art. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Goldschlag, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. 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 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“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). Although Petitioner notes certain constructions that it has proposed in district court, both parties agree that no term requires construction to decide whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Pet. 14 (Petitioner asserting that “[n]o term needs construction in this proceeding”); Prelim. Resp. 3 (“Patent Owner does not contend that any term requires construction for purposes of this Preliminary Response”). Because we also discern no term that requires construction to resolve the issues before us, we do not expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“restricts access to its network for clients that do not conform with the required security policy.” Pet. 37. Specifically, upon determining nonconformance, Herrmann’s policy server 460 “may restrict a session to limited access (e.g., a set of IP addresses) rather than deny access completely.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 78). In addition, Herrmann also teaches the use of EAP during both authentication and authorization, including an express extension “to support policy-based authentication systems.” Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 56, 58; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–93). Although Herrmann does not expressly describe implementing restricted access in the context of a network of VLANs, Petitioner reasons that such would have been obvious in light of Krantz’s teaching of VLANs, particularly because Krantz specifically assigns a subset of VLANs as an isolated “sandbox” area. Id. at 37–38. Specifically, Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to segregate Herrmann’s sandbox area using at least one separate VLAN to improve network security,” and supports that reasoning with testimony by Dr. Goldschlag. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53). Petitioner also provides evidence that VLANs would have been recognized at the time of invention as a well-known technique for segregating network portions having different security needs. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54 (testimony of Dr. Goldschlag); Ex. 1031, Abstr. (IEEE 802.1Q standard)). In addition, Dr. Goldschlag testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Herrmann’s network using VLANs “for improved scalability and network management.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 55. Furthermore, Petitioner identifies language in Krantz to support its contention that Krantz itself motivates the combination by teaching that VLANs were a known alternative to IP filtering for restricting network access. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 32; Ex. 1003 ¶ 56). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s reasons for combining Herrmann and Krantz, and, on the record before us, we find that reasoning supported by a rational underpinning. We accordingly find that Petitioner makes a sufficient showing at this stage with respect to the “restricting” limitation of independent claims 1 and 13.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,877,786 - PTAB · Sep 20, 2021 · IPR2021-00669 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing unpatentability of the challenged claims of the ’654 patent. Accordingly, no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“bit at a time on a single path.’” Prelim. Resp. 20 (quoting Ex. 2002, 11 (IEEE Dictionary) (defining “serial transmission”); citing Ex. 1001, 20:66−21:3 (“describing ‘bit based line’ ‘for transmitting serial bits’”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 76). Based on the evidence before us, we agree with Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction. Ex. 1001, 20:66−21:3; Ex. 2001 ¶ 76; Ex. 2002, 9, 11.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In that regard, relying on the declaration of Dr. Edwards, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ʼ654 patent’s invention would have had “at least a Master’s Degree in, or a related subject, or a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related subject and three years of experience working with computer architecture, computer busses, and related technologies.” Pet. 9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–47.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“teach the claimed “graphics controller,” citing Dr. Edwards’ testimony for support. Pet. 22−23 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:21–25, 23:54–57; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72– 73). However, as discussed above in our claim construction analysis, in the context of the ’654 patent, a “graphics controller” is a processing unit having graphics processing functionality (e.g., producing graphical video output), and thus, not merely a graphics interface. As Dr. Levitt testifies, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a graphics interface is not a graphic controller, because “the graphics interface is simply the interface for connecting an external graphics processor to the processor module,” wherein “[t]he graphics interface itself provides no actual graphics processing functionality.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 72. We credit Dr. Levitt’s testimony as it is consistent with the Specification and the general knowledge of an 26 ordinarily skilled artisan. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:4−17, 19:4−9, Figs. 3, 19, 20.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham - Unified Patents, LLC v. Ideahub Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2020-00702 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 4 are unpatentable as obvious over Kalevo and Song; the revised contingent motion to amend with substitute claim 19 is denied for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that we need not address whether the Unnamed RPIs were improperly excluded because, “even if [they] were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 32 (Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential) (“SharkNinja”). Like in SharkNinja, the Unnamed RPIs here are currently members of Unified. Unlike in SharkNinja, however, neither Petitioner nor any of the Unnamed RPIs were sued. Pet. Reply 18 (asserting that “[n]o Unified member is an RPI, especially because . . . to the best of Unified’s knowledge, none has been sued or threatened with suit by Ideahub,” and that thus, “there are no . . . time-bar issues”). Petitioner also asserts that none of the Unnamed RPIs have challenged the ’849 patent. Id. (asserting that “[n]o Unified member is an RPI, especially because . . . no Unified member has filed its own patent challenge to the ’849 patent” and that thus, “there are no estoppel . . . issues”). Accordingly, we determine that neither issues of time bar nor issues of estoppel are implicated. Under the Board’s precedential decision in Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., the Board’s jurisdiction to consider a petition does not require a “correct” identification of all RPIs in a petition. IPR2015- 00739, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (precedential); see also Blue Coat Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 at 10 (PTAB July 18, 2017) (“Evidence [of failure to identify all RPIs] is, at best, suggestive of an issue that is not jurisdictional.”). The Federal Circuit has held that § 312(a)(2) is not jurisdictional. See Mayne Pharma Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 927 F.3d 1232, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]f a petition fails to identify all real parties in interest under § 312(a)(2), the Director can, and does, allow the petitioner to add a real party in interest.”) (quoting Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364, 1374 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc)). In the present proceeding, there is no allegation that Petitioner’s exclusion of the Unnamed RPIs should result in termination of the proceeding or denial of institution of review for any reason other than for the alleged failure of a procedural requirement that can be corrected pursuant to Board precedent. Additionally, there is no allegation or evidence that any of the Unnamed RPIs is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that Petitioner purposefully omitted any of the Unnamed RPIs to gain some advantage.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“After our Institution Decision, Patent Owner raised two claim construction issues in its Patent Owner Response: (1) “wherein the intra mode for the current block is determined by using a [first/second] set of one or more mathematical expressions, if the intra mode for the neighboring block is the [nondirectional/directional] mode” and (2) “wherein the second set of one or more mathematical expressions is different from the first set of one or more mathematical expressions.” PO Resp. 10–18. We determine that no construction of these terms is necessary for this Final Written Decision. 1. Other Claim Terms We discern no other terms in need of express interpretation. Accordingly, we apply the legal standards set forth above when reading the claims. C. THE PARTIES’ POST-INSTITUTION ARGUMENTS” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill A person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date for the ’849 Patent (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related scientific field such as physics or computer science, and two years of work experience with video processing. A lack of experience can be remedied with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 4–5 years). Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 48). Patent Owner does not dispute this definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Reader, however, testifies that It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of video compression in the 2009 time period, would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, or an equivalent degree, and two to three years of experience in the field of video compression. Ex. 2001 ¶ 45. We see no meaningful distinction between these definitions relevant to the particular issues necessary to decide this case. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the Specification and in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 13
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s so-called “third” theory is untimely and should be disregarded. To begin with, there is no dispute that the theory is, at least, raised with respect to claim limitation [1.8]. See PO Sur-Reply 6. Patent Owner disputes the particularity of this contention, but we find that it is sufficiently clear. The theory is not complicated and the sentence, especially given the detailed explanation of the other theories and of how Kalevo works, is sufficient to provide notice. Moreover, the cited paragraph of Dr. Freedman’s First Declaration (Paragraph 140) provides additional detail to clarify the theory. Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Petitioner’s reply does explain how this third theory fits into Patent Owner’s arguments and claim constructions, but Petitioner’s Reply does not expand the theory beyond the contours provided in the Petition. As for limitations [1.9] and [1.10], we also find that the third theory was disclosed. To begin with the cited sentence in limitation [1.8] and supporting paragraph from Dr. Freedman’s declaration discusses the mapping of both directional and non-directional modes to classes, thus including both limitations [1.8] and [1.9]. As Petitioner points out, the Petition’s analysis of limitation [1.9] repeatedly refers back the analysis for limitation [1.8] and explicitly describes on page 52 of the Petition that Additionally, as a further teaching of this limitation, for the above case in which block L is classified as context class C3 (mapped to from directional class D4) and block U is classified as context class C4 (mapped from any one of directional classes D5, D6, or D7), the determination of each neighboring block’s classification, and thus, the determination of the intra prediction mode for the neighboring block, is based on a second set of one or more mathematical expressions. Pet. 52. Finally, with respect limitation [1.10], we note that, although it is less clear, the analysis of limitation [1.10] does explain how classes C1–C6 are not the same in that they involve different underlying rules. Id. at 55–57. Finally, Patent Owner’s arguments that “the Petition provided no analysis as to how the mapping constitutes a mathematical expression that is used in the process of determining the current block’s intra mode” is belied by the Petition’s detailed explanation of how Kalevo operates. See Pet. 16–25. Although Petitioner supports this argument with new evidence in its Reply, the Reply does not raise a new issue or argument. See Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”). Moreover, Patent Owner has had an adequate opportunity to address this new evidence in its Sur-Reply. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 972 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding “an opportunity to respond was needed when the petitioner . . . newly pointed to a previously unmentioned portion of the . . . prior-art patent, even though it had earlier focused extensively on other portions of that prior-art patent”).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,641,849 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,641,849 - PTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00608 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding substantially the same arguments had been presented before and Petitioner failed to show material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under § 325(d), in “determining whether to institute [an inter partes review], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We determine whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) 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; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons stated below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’654 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“3. § 325(d) Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office and that Petitioner fails to show that the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the ’654 Patent claims. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review. Advanced Bionics at 8; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review. 26 IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Chu ’886 was not included in any of the applications in the ’654 patent priority chain before the amendments in the ’138 application, the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’654 patent claims relying on this subject matter for written description support under § 112, ¶ 1, is the filing date of the ’108 application, i.e., November 10, 2011, “the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’654 Patent claims relying on this subject matter.” Pet. 15−17. However, the amendments to the ’138 application were proper because, as discussed above, when claims were added to the ’138 application that transformed previously non-essential material into allegedly essential 25 material, Patent Owner submitted an amendment to explicitly set forth the material in the specification in accordance with the procedure set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(g) (2007) and MPEP § 608.01(p) (8th Ed. Rev. 8 July 2010). See Prelim. Resp. 28−33. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’777 patent and the applications in the ’654 patent priority chain did not properly incorporate by reference Chu ’330 and Chu ’886, or that the examiner erred in entering the amendments that added the subject matter from Chu ’886 to the ’138 application. As such, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims of the ’654 patent is November 10, 2011.” slip op. at 25
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
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.