- PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01420 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–19 on all presented grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable, and declining Fintiv discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–19 of the ’402 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’402 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Petitioner filed a Sotera stipulation. Paper 11. Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation “mitigates any concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board, as well as concerns of potentially conflicting decisions.” Sotera, Paper 12 at 19 (citing Sand Revolution, Paper 24 at 12). Accordingly, this factor weighs against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 46
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’402 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent technical training. Additionally, they would have at least three years of experience in designing or programming internet-related processes, such as user profile management and/or web-based targeted advertising.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55). For purposes of the Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’).” Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with 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 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“According to Petitioner: “Because the prior art asserted herein discloses the preferred embodiment within the indisputable scope of the claims, the Board need not construe the outer bounds of the claims as part of these proceedings.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶ 57). Patent Owner responds that, at the preliminary stage of this proceeding, “no term needs explicit construction to resolve any controversy between the parties.” Prelim. Resp. 9. We do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision on institution. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,562,402 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01316 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 on all three obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Home Depot would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“In the absence of specific evidence, we will not attempt to predict how the district court in the related district court litigation will proceed because the court may determine whether or not to stay an individual case, including the related one, based on a variety of circumstances and facts beyond our control and to which the Board is not privy.” Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp. – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (Decision Granting Request for Rehearing) (informative) (“Sand Revolution”). If Home Depot were to file a motion to stay in the EDTX Litigation, we decline to speculate how the district court would rule on such a motion. Accordingly, this factor is neutral. slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“RavenWhite does not dispute Home Depot’s assertion that the Examiner did not meaningfully address Hinton and Varghese, either alone or in combination, during prosecution of the ’823 patent. See Ex. 1003. Stated differently, with respect to factor (a), the Examiner did not apply the teachings of Hinton and Varghese, either alone or in combination, to teach 6 All references to the page numbers in the prosecution history of the ’823 patent refer to the page numbers inserted by Home Depot in the bottom, right-hand corner of each page in Exhibit 1003. or suggest the limitations of the originally presented claims of the ’823 patent, nor did the Examiner apply the teachings of these references to account for language that was added via amendment during prosecution (i.e., a “first client device browser storage area” and a “second client device browser storage area”). With respect to factor (b), RavenWhite does not provide an explanation as to how the teachings of Flash that were applied by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’823 patent are cumulative to the teachings of Hinton and Varghese applied by Home Depot in the Petition. Turning to factor (d), RavenWhite asserts that there is overlap between arguments that were presented during prosecution of the ’823 patent to distinguish the then-pending claims over Flash and the arguments presented in the Preliminary Response to distinguish the challenged claims over Hinton and Varghese. See Prelim. Resp. 25. This overlap, by itself, does not warrant discretionary denial because, as we explain below, Home Depot persuasively explains how the teachings of Hinton and Varghese account for the claimed “first client device browser storage area” and “second client device browser storage area.” See infra Section II.D.4.b and II.E.2.b. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by RavenWhite’s arguments that the Petition presents substantially the same art or arguments that were considered previously by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’823 patent. b. Becton, Dickinson Factors (c), (e), and (f) Advanced Bionics further informs our evaluation of factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics indicates that satisfying the first part of the framework is a prerequisite to reaching the second part of the framework. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8, 10. As we explain above, we determine that the Petition does not present the same or substantially the same art or arguments that were presented previously to the Office during prosecution of the ’823 patent. As a result, we need not reach whether Home Depot has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims of the ’823 patent. 2. Summary For the reasons given above, we conclude that the circumstances presented here do not warrant exercising our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). Notably, the Examiner did not meaningfully address Hinton and Varghese, either alone or in combination, during prosecution of the ’823 patent. As a result, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“construction standard as in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). That is, claim terms generally are construed in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent at issue. See id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term “is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent,” and “as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Dr. Wills, Home Depot argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’823 patent (October 31, 2006) . . . would have had a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience with computer networks and digital information transmission techniques or other relevant industry experience. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 65). In the Preliminary Response, “[RavenWhite] applies [Home Depot’s] definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Pet. 6). At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Home Depot’s uncontested assessment of the level of skill in the art because (1) it is consistent with the ’823 patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Wills.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,594,823 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01250 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–5, 7, 9–16, or 20 unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Min’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s [degree] in [electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science], physics, or equivalent, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures, protocols and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 59). Dr. Min testifies that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. Additionally, Petitioner contends that Dr. Min “exceeded this level of experience by the priority date.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1010 (curriculum vitae of Dr. Min)). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’946 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Neither party contends that any claim terms require an express construction to resolve the present controversy. Pet. 8 (“For purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner does not believe any terms require a formal construction.”); see generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, Petitioner explains that the Petition is structured such that “Ground 1 is based on Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the district court litigation, where the claimed ‘MUD module’ is generally mapped to multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) receivers in a wireless network.” Pet. 2. Petitioner contends that “[u]nder this broad interpretation of a ‘MUD module,’ Walton’s MIMO receiver renders every challenged claim obvious.” Id. In contrast to Ground 1, the Petition states that “Ground 2 is based on the plain meaning of ‘MUD module,’ which is a component that detects, separates, and decodes signals from multiple users transmitting simultaneously over the same frequency band.” Id. Petitioner contends that, “[a]pplying the correct meaning of the term, Walton’s MIMO receiver does not necessarily comprise a MUD module.” Id. Therefore, Petitioner explains that “Ground 2 combines Walton with Learned, which expressly discloses [a] multi-user detector, and thus renders every challenged claim obvious in combination with Walton.” Id. at 2–3.7 In other words, the Petition presents Ground 1 and Grounds 2/3 as alternatives depending on the meaning of 7 Although not specifically relevant to claim construction, Petitioner explains that “Ground 3 further combines Walton and Learned with Quigley, to the extent Patent Owner argues Walton does not disclose providing a burst control input.” Pet. 3. “MUD module,” where Ground 1 is based on Petitioner’s understanding of Patent Owner’s interpretation of the term and Grounds 2 and 3 are based on Petitioner’s interpretation of the term as having its plain meaning. Petitioner further contends that “[e]very other claim term carries its ‘ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . .” Id. at 8. Although Petitioner presents a potential dispute regarding the meaning of “MUD module,” we need not construe this term expressly because the determination we reach herein does not depend on which meaning MUD module is applied. Accordingly, we do not construe any claim terms expressly because express constructions are not necessary to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owners contends that the factors set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), weigh heavily in favor of discretionary denial. Prelim. Resp. 40–46; Paper 10. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 74–77; Paper 9. In light of the conclusion reached above, we need not address the parties’ arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,089,946 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01248 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11, 16, and 21 unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’071 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes a specific construction of any claim term, although Petitioner contends each term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 16; see generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because the meaning of the terms is not in dispute and an express construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We find the Petition lacking in particularity because it does not clearly identify what aspect of Jin is alleged to teach the unique signal parameters (or unique estimated signal parameters) recited in claim 1. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if — (3) the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim . . . .”). First, as reflected above, the Petition asserts that something called a “unique pilot parameter” teaches the recited unique estimated signal parameters. But “unique pilot parameter” is not a term or phrase recited in Jin. See Prelim. Resp. 19 (arguing the same). So, when Petitioner states “Jin discloses that the base station uses the unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique estimated signal parameters’) to ‘identify which user (i.e., mobile terminal) has transmitted the received data,’” it is not clear what element in Jin Petitioner intends to identify by the term “unique pilot parameter.” Dr. Min’s testimony does not help resolve the ambiguity in the Petition. In particular, Dr. Min also refers to a “unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique signal parameter’) for each user.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 89. But, as noted above, Jin does not disclose an element referred to as a “pilot parameter” and it is not clear what element Dr. Min intended to identify in Jin.8” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,814,071 - PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01176 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–23 on all petition grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim based on MPEG-1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “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 discussed below, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to all claims challenged in the Petition. Thus, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the ’148 Patent would have had a (1) Bachelor’s degree in Electrical or Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a comparable field of study such as Physics, and (2) approximately 2-3 years of practical experience with video and/or image processing or coding. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa. Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–24). Patent Owner applied Petitioner’s definition in the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 16 (Pet. 5–6). At this stage, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested assessment of the level of skill in the art because (1) it is consistent with the ’148 patent and the asserted prior art and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Eli Saber.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“For purpose of institution, we preliminarily determine that claim 1 requires a sequence-level parameter. The claims themselves provide “substantial guidance” regarding the meaning of claim language. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Here, claim 1 recites that the level is for encoding a “sequence.” Ex. 1001, 25:56–60. Claim 1 expressly recites that “the digital video sequence compris[es] a number of frames.” Id. at 25:43–44. In this way, claim 1 defines a sequence to exclude a single picture. This reading is consistent with the specification’s focus on a sequence-level solution. According to the ’148 patent, “The present invention improves prior art solutions for indicating QP related information by introducing a sequence level QP” (SQP). Id. at 11:25–27 (emphasis added). Indeed, Petitioner acknowledges that the SQP is the purported improvement. See Pet. 5. Patent Owner agrees. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 8–9, 25–26. Claims are not normally interpreted “in a way that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.” Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A trial could produce additional evidence that may support a determination in the Final Written Decision that defining a picture-by-picture quantization level is somehow “for use in encoding of the digital video sequence.” But, at this stage, the parties have given us little reason to adopt such a construction. There is no dispute that H.263 signals PQUANT at the Picture layer. Pet. 51; Prelim. Resp. 25. Indeed, the basis for Petitioner’s challenge is that PQUANT defines the quantizer for a picture and is updated for GOBs or macroblocks within the picture. Pet. 53. We disagree with the interpretation used in Petitioner’s challenge: a picture-layer quantization parameter falls within the scope of the claim. Id. at 51. Rather, for the reasons discussed above, we preliminarily determine that the claims require a sequence-level parameter. And Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why PQUANT is a sequence-level parameter. Thus, we cannot conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to claim 1 with respect to H.263. See id.; Prelim. Resp. 25.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,175,148 - Align Technology, Inc. v. Dental Monitoring SASAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01369 · APJ Jean R Homere · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Salah, Carrier, and Maninis; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1002 ¶ 6; Ex. 1003, 12–13; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 7 (describing a project that “was directed to the registration/alignment of dental CT scans of patients over a period of time during the treatment of a patient, with the purpose of improving the quality of 3D models, e.g., corrections and noise removal in 3D CT scans”). Therefore, we find on this record that Dr. Foroosh qualifies to testify from or about the perspective of a POSITA, and further meets the requisite qualifications to opine on the prior art relied upon in the challenge of the ’409 patent. Accordingly, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Dr. Valley’s testimony regarding the dental nature of the references in the Petitioner’s challenge includes disclosures that Dr. Foroosh did not understand when forming his opinions. PO Sur-Reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 34, 41–44; Ex. 2053, 38:18–39:6, 64:5–67:19; Ex. 2048, 130:8–11, 143:22–145:10, 149:19–22).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1002 ¶ 6; Ex. 1003, 12–13; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 7 (describing a project that “was directed to the registration/alignment of dental CT scans of patients over a period of time during the treatment of a patient, with the purpose of improving the quality of 3D models, e.g., corrections and noise removal in 3D CT scans”). Therefore, we find on this record that Dr. Foroosh qualifies to testify from or about the perspective of a POSITA, and further meets the requisite qualifications to opine on the prior art relied upon in the challenge of the ’409 patent. Accordingly, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Dr. Valley’s testimony regarding the dental nature of the references in the Petitioner’s challenge includes disclosures that Dr. Foroosh did not understand when forming his opinions. PO Sur-Reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 34, 41–44; Ex. 2053, 38:18–39:6, 64:5–67:19; Ex. 2048, 130:8–11, 143:22–145:10, 149:19–22).” slip op. at 13
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“by Petitioner, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Exhibits 1022, 1023, 1025, and 1026 are true and accurate versions of documents downloaded using the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. Accordingly, we are satisfied that Exhibits 1022, 1023, 1025, and 1026 have thereby been authenticated by the testimony of Mr. Frank-White. Ex. 1031. For these reasons, we decline to exclude or disregard Exhibits 1022, 1023, 1025, and 1026 as lacking authenticity.” slip op. at 72
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“prior art under AIA § 102, we only need to determine whether the provisional application describes the subject matter in the non-provisional application relied upon by Petitioner. Stated differently, the holding in Dynamic Drinkware as to whether a claim in the non-provisional has sufficient written description support in the provisional application does not apply to an AIA § 102 reference, such as Carrier. Id. at 31–33. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “the reasoning and statutory interpretation in Dynamic Drinkware still controls.” PO Sur-Reply 4. Because Petitioner provides in the Petition citations to where the Carrier Provisional describes the subject matter relied upon in Carrier (Pet. 10), and Patent Owner does not persuasively argue in the Response or the Sur-Reply that Petitioner’s proffered support is deficient, we agree on this record that the subject matter of Carrier that Petitioner relies upon for its challenge, which also appears in the Carrier Provisional, is prior art to the claims of the ’409 patent. Consequently, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument regarding the alleged lack of written description support in the Carrier provisional for a user (as opposed to a dental professional) using a mobile device to capture dental images (PO Resp. 24; Sur-Reply 5–6) because Petitioner does not rely on Carrier for such a feature, which is not even recited in the challenged claims. Accordingly, on the record before us, we determine that the subject matter from Carrier upon which Petitioner’s challenge is based qualifies as prior art to challenged claims of the ’409 patent.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,755,409 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,755,409 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01274 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable: claim 3 as obvious over Clark, Manner, and Santoro; claim 4 as obvious over Clark and Manner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“We have considered the parties’ respective arguments concerning the construction of this claim term and, for the following reasons, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “compartment” as “an enclosed space for containing an item.” First, Petitioner does not dispute that it agreed to adopt Patent Owner’s construction in the district court proceeding between the parties. Pet. Reply 5; Tr. 8:14–21. Second, Petitioner cites to several Board Decisions in which the panels construed claim terms even though the parties agreed to constructions in parallel litigation and argues that the agreement between Petitioner and Patent Owner in the parallel district court proceeding has no bearing on this proceeding. Id. (citing Cook Grp. Inc. v. Cook Med. LLC, IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7–8 (PTAB May 16, 2017); Arris Int’l PLC v. Sony Corp., IPR2016-00834, Paper 54 at 26–29 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2017); Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18–19 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2016)). But, those cited decisions are not precedential and two of them were decided under the “broadest reasonable interpretation standard,” not the Phillips standard, thereby rendering a stipulation between the parties in district court less informative to the panels’ determinations. See Apple, IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18; Cook Grp., IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7. More importantly, given Petitioner’s agreement with Patent Owner’s construction in the district court, we see no reason to apply a different construction here simply because Petitioner proposed that construction prior to agreeing to the construction with Patent Owner in district court. Tr. 11:21–25.8” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act as his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“For the following reasons, we determine that the portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent relied on by Patent Owner do not “prov[e] the existence of a ‘clear and unmistakable’ disclaimer that would have been evident to one skilled in the art.” Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1063– 64.14 Patent Owner argues that the prosecution history redefined the term forward “by disclaiming workstations that are mounted on top of or over the height adjustment mechanism.” PO Resp. 29. Claims 3 and 4 recite “a work platform including a work surface and compartments for containing items” not a “workstation.” It is unclear what Patent Owner is referring to as the “workstation,” i.e., the recited “work platform,” the recited “work surface,” or the combination of “work platform,” “work surface,” and the recited “compartments.” Patent Owner injects further ambiguity by rephrasing the disclaimer, as “Applicant explicitly disclaimed carts having work stations mounted entirely to the top of the height adjustment mechanism (e.g., carts like Clark and Reeder).” Id. at 30 (emphasis added). Regardless of these 14 Because of our determination that the requirements for a clear and unmistakable disclaimer are not met by the cited portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent, we need not and do not reach the question of relevance of the statements in the prosecution of the ’650 patent to the claims of the ’668 patent. ambiguities, Patent Owner misinterprets the statements in the prosecution history. The applicant’s primary argument was that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have incorporated moveable work surfaces above the “compartment” of Clark. Ex. 1033, 137–38. The applicant’s arguments, thus, do not support Patent Owner’s argument here that “workstations” should not be mounted “over or on top of the height adjustment mechanism.” See id.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,668 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,594,668 - Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01275 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Clark and Manner (claims 1–3, 5, 8) and Clark, Manner, and Hartman (claim 6).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 17–18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. at 18. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“i. “actuator” Petitioner contends in district court that the term “an actuator for controlling the driver” is indefinite for invoking means-plus-function claim language without providing corresponding structure. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1023, 36–40; Ex. 1024, 28–32). For the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner adopts the construction Patent Owner presented in the district court, i.e., “a mechanism to activate or control equipment, e.g., by use of pneumatic, hydraulic, or electronic signals.” Id. at 10 (quoting Ex. 1012, 3–4). Patent Owner does not address this term in this proceeding. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Because it is uncontested in this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s construction from the district court proceeding as presented here by Petitioner.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Although not dispositive to our Decision, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of this term, which does not require the work surface to be curved.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act of his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. We start our analysis with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “wherein the work platform includes a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism, in a forward direction . . . the compartment is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction.” Ex. 1001, 14:39–43. By reciting “a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism,” the claim language implies that the entire work platform is not required to project in the forward direction. We also note that nothing in claim 1 requires any particular size of the compartment. The only recitation in the claim regarding location of the compartment is that it “is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction,” but that language on its face does not require or suggest that the compartments are “entirely in” or only “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. In other words, nothing in the claims expressly restricts the compartments from being disposed in the “portion” recited as well as another portion of the work platform that does not project in the forward direction. Turning to the Specification, Patent Owner does not direct us to any” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,215,650 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,215,650 - PTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01143 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were unpatentable under any of its anticipation or obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“Verizon Wireless, Ericsson Inc., and Nokia of America Corporation (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–8 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,059 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’059 patent”). Innovative Sonic Limited (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12, “Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 13, “Prelim. Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 14, “Prelim. Sur-reply”), each of which is narrowly tailored to address Petitioner’s stipulation provided in response to Patent Owner’s arguments for discretionary denial under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (Order Authorizing Supplemental Briefing on Discretionary Denial) (precedential), and the resulting impact of that stipulation.1” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“the “[p]etition equates [3GPP-4.60-v860-Specification’s] variables ‘V(A)’ and ‘V(S)’ with the ’059 [p]atent specification’s ‘VT(A)’ and ‘VT(S)’, instead of mapping [3GPP-4.60-v860-Specification’s] variables to the claim language.” Prelim. Resp. 21-22 (citing Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 81)) (emphasis added). As noted above, anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior art reference. See Atlas Powder, 190 F.3d at 1346. This requires Petitioner to read or “map” each limitation of claim 1 to the corresponding feature found in the 3GPP-4.60- v860-Specification. Petitioner has not done so here.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“As an initial matter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit guides that, “[e]ven when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000). But here, we note the evidence relied upon to support Petitioner’s proposed motivation to modify the 3GPP-4.60-v860- Specification is found in paragraphs 98–100 of Dr. Hass’s declaration (Ex. 1002), which merely repeat the identical language from pages 33–35 of the Petition. We thus find this declaration evidence unpersuasive because it is conclusory, and it does not set forth a suggestion or motivation to modify the 3GPP-4.60-v860-Specification. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 98–100.” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,664,059
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.