• Draftkings Inc. v. AG 18, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2022-01445 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1–9, 13–16, 18, and 29 are anticipated by Bryson; claims 10–12, 17, and 19–28 are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and determine that these go to the weight we should give Dr. Lane’s testimony, not its admissibility. See Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Int’l., 385 F.3d 72, 81 (1st Cir. 2004) (“When the factual underpinning of an expert’s opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony—a question to be resolved by the [factfinder].”). As Petitioner notes, we have adopted Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, which is a “bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, applied mathematics, or a similar field, and at least two years of experience” slip op. at 68

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “b) Discussion Patent Owner’s position that “dynamically” creating a list means that the list is somehow in the process of “ongoing” or “continuous” creation does not add clarity to understanding of the scope of claims 1 and 8. In that regard, it is not apparent what is meant by “ongoing” or “continuous” list creation. Does that mean the list is never static and must be in a constant state of change? Patent Owner does not point to any record content providing context as to the frequency of list creation that would give rise to such creation being “ongoing” or “continuous.” We also do not discern that the portions of the record cited by Patent Owner, including the Specification of the ’131 patent and the prosecution history, provide cogent support for Patent Owner’s proposed meaning of the term “dynamically.”” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “We additionally observed that Patent Owner agreed that the relevant Means For Terms and Module Terms were understood to be presented in a mean-plus-function format that invokes § 112 ¶ 6, but that Patent Owner generally disagreed with Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Id. at 17–18. For purposes of institution, we were not persuaded that Patent Owner’s argument directed only to an exemplary one of the Module Terms, i.e., “gaming operation creation module,” was adequate to deny institution, and noted that issues pertaining to the Means For and Module Terms may be more thoroughly developed by the parties during trial. Id. at 17–20.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,024,131 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,024,131
• Draftkings Inc. v. AG 18, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2022-01442 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable: claims 8, 9, 14–16, and 19 as obvious over Bryson; the remaining challenged claims under the other stated obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “b) Discussion Patent Owner’s position that “dynamically” creating a list means that the list is somehow in the process of “ongoing” or “continuous” creation does not add clarity to understanding of the scope of claims 1, 8, and 30. In that regard, it is not apparent what is meant by “ongoing” or “continuous” list creation. Does that mean the list is never static and must be in a constant state of change? Patent Owner does not point to any record content providing context as to the frequency of list creation that would give rise to such creation being “ongoing” or “continuous.” We also do not discern that the portions of the record cited by Patent Owner, including the Specification of the ’220 patent and the prosecution history, provide cogent support for Patent Owner’s proposed meaning of the term “dynamically.”” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We note that the parties’ competing arguments concerning construction of the Module Terms, including “tournament administration module,” in this proceeding are certainly not a model of clarity. In considering the record before us, however, we discern that Petitioner, in the the ’220 patent in connection with each of the Module Terms, including a “tournament administration module,” that are recognizable as identifying an algorithm that a skilled artisan would understand performs the claimed function(s). Further, those algorithm(s) are implemented by a special purpose hardware programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm(s), such as an ASIC, a PLD, an FPGA, or the like, thereby providing corresponding structure for the various modules recited in claims 11, 12, 18, 21, and 24. We note that Mr. Nicely testifies the following as to the “tournament administration module”: [P]ursuant to § 112 ¶ 6, the foregoing structure of each claimed “module” (i.e., the “programmable circuitry”) must include an algorithm that performs the corresponding function described in the specification of the ’220 Patent.[footnote omitted] I therefore provide the claim chart below identifying the portions of the specification of the ’131 Patent that describe the claimed functions of each recited “means for” and “module”:” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “more detail below, we note that Bryson clearly provides that content, such as available games, is displayed to a player, e.g., on a player’s mobile gaming device, based on a player’s location. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 8:30–39. Because of that circumstance, Bryson clearly states that “the location of a mobile gaming device may need to be determined on an ongoing basis.” Id. at 8:38–39 (emphasis added). That game content displayed to a player, such as game listing, is altered based on a player’s location, and that the location is determined “on an ongoing basis” lends itself readily to a conclusion that the creation or presentation of the list is also “on an ongoing basis” per Patent Owner’s claim construction. In that respect, we agree with Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 22–23. Accordingly, having considered the respective positions of the parties, we conclude that Petitioner presents the better case that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated Bryson’s disclosure as accounting for the dynamic creation of a list of gaming options that is recited in claim 1 (and also the similar recitations in each of claims 8 and 30).” slip op. at 50

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive. Petitioner relies on components or aspects of each of Frenkel’s and Amaitis’s gaming system to simply operate as they are intended to in conjunction with Bryson’s gaming system. Although during oral argument Patent Owner expressed that it was not making a “bodily incorporation argument” (see, e.g., Tr. 93:4–6), that is for not specifically identifying where particular components would be situated in a system based on the combined teachings of the prior art. There is no requirement, however, in an obviousness inquiry of a showing of how any particular feature may be directly or bodily incorporated into any particular system or device. See Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference[.]”) We further reject Patent Owner’s argument that a skilled artisan would not have reasonably expected success in implementing components or aspects of Frenkel and Amaitis into Bryson’s system so as to function for their intended purpose. We note that there is no disagreement between the parties as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In that respect, there is no dispute that a skilled artisan in this case has a background in computer engineering, or similar discipline, and experience in the development of gambling game hardware and software functionality. See supra § II.B. Patent Owner does not explain credibly why a skilled artisan with that relevant education and experience would have been unable to address routine implementation issues or technical difficulties that may arise in combining the teachings of the pertinent prior art, all of which are directed to similar matters of network based interactive gaming.” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 10,497,220 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,497,220
• Nokia Of America Corporation v. Alexander Soto And Walter SotoInstituted
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00960 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR of claims 1–16 and 18–30 on both §103 grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claim 1 over Shraga and Togami.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We therefore institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Other

    “The problem with the parties’ briefing on the trial date issue is that it appears that in the District Court: 1) a stay (Ex. 3006) has been issued in the Fujitsu case (the “pending” May trial date (See Ex. 1032)); 2) NextGen Innovations has filed another patent infringement suit against Nokia (Nokia II) (Paper 17, 2); and 3) Nokia has jointly moved (Ex. 3007) to deconsolidate Nokia I from the Fujitsu case and to consolidate Nokia I with Nokia II, which the District Court has granted (Ex. 3008). Based upon our review of these documents, none of which were provided to the Board by the parties, it appears that there no longer is a pending District Court trial date in May 2004 involving Nokia. Given the lack of notice of these developments by the parties to the Board on an issue that is material to the Board’s Fintiv analysis and the decision in this case, the Board no longer has confidence that the parties have provided the Board with accurate, timely factual information that the Board needs in order to render a fair, just determination of the Fintiv issue and this case. Accordingly, pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.11 (d)(3), the parties are Ordered to Show Cause why they should not be sanctioned under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 (a) (2), (3) and to file briefs addressing this issue, not to exceed 10 pages, within 10 days of this Decision. G.” slip op. at 25

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “Section 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining 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, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”).” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner describes a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as a person having at least “(1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study and (2) at least two years of experience with optical data communications or a comparable field of work.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30–31). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Paul Prucnal, testifies to substantially the same level of ordinary skill in the art (Ex. 1003 ¶ 30) but adds that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been familiar with MSA optical modules, including SFP, XFP, and XENPAK, . . . networking protocols such as Ethernet, and the technologies that enable it, as well as the miniaturization of those technologies into what are commonly known as Small Form-Factor Pluggable (SFP) module” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute the Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears to be consistent with the subject matter of the ’754 patent. This is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Prucnal. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30–31. We agree Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision, with the exception of the qualifier “at least,” to keep the description from being vague and extending to a level reflecting that of an expert. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). C.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,238,754
• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01239 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 12–14, 17, and 18 are unpatentable under § 103 over Laracey and Jogu, with Tang or Dorsey added for claims 17 and 18, respectively.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payments,” and “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “agreed to construe the claim term “payment gateway” as a “server or collection of servers for settling a payment.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1016, 2). Petitioner further contends that the parties are disputing the constructions of the claim terms “e-purse,” e-purse applet,” and “application” in the District Court Case, but the differences between the proposed constructions need not be resolved for this proceeding because its asserted grounds of unpatentability satisfy both Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s proposed constructions.9 Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1016, 4–5). Petitioner, however, applies its proposed construction in its arguments. See Pet. 29. 9 In the District Court Case, Petitioner proposed that “e-purse” should be construed as “software that stores electronic financial information, including electronic value, in a local portable device,” while Patent Owner proposed was adopted in the District Court Case, as well as in another proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas. PO Resp. 11 (citing RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 2:20-cv-274-JRG, 2021 WL 5357465, at *6-*9 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2021); RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00916-ADA, Dkt. 100 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2022)). Patent Owner argues that because the parties agree that an e-purse must be “software” that “stores financial information in a local device,” “[t]he Board need not resolve the distinction between the parties’ proposals for this proceeding because Petitioner fails to show that Laracey discloses ‘an electronic purse (e-purse) maintained locally in the mobile device’ under the agreed portions of the construction.” Id. at 11–12. We agree that the differences between the two proposed constructions are minimal. On the full record before us, however, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why the proper construction of “e-purse” requires that the stored financial information include electronic value and that the software is in a local portable device. Therefore, we adopt the district court’s construction of “e-purse” as “software that stores electronic financial information in a local device” for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “does rely on Laracey’s stored value account alone as the claimed e-purse, we disagree that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Laracey’s stored value account is software. As noted above, Mr. Smith testifies that “a stored value account was well known prior to the ’046 patent and was commonly stored in a form of secured memory and contained data representing an transaction” and “Laracey’s stored value account would have been understood to be software located in memory within a mobile device that contained financial information including data representing an amount of money (e.g., a balance) useable for purchases.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 100. In contrast, Dr. Weaver testifies that “an ‘account’ like the PetPlace Gift account is not software. Instead, it is simply a visualization of a collection of information. Laracey simply displays the gift card account balance 884n on the mobile phone 102 after that account balance has been received from the Transaction Management System (TMS) 130.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 56. Weighing the competing testimony of Mr. Smith and Dr. Weaver, we credit Mr. Smith’s testimony as more persuasive evidence. Dr. Weaver does not explain adequately why “a visualization of a collection of information” is not software, or, more importantly, why displaying an account balance on the mobile phone does not involve software.” slip op. at 20

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Based on the full record before us, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden of establishing that the combination of Laracey and Jogu discloses the “verifying” limitations of claims 1 and 12. c) The Remaining Aspects of Petitioner’s Contentions Patent Owner does not offer any arguments specifically addressing the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 12. PO Resp. 13–32. We need not set forth formal findings as to the undisputed assertions by Petitioner that the combination of Laracey and Jogu discloses or suggests these limitations. See LG Elecs., Inc. v. Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., 759 F. App’x 917, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is ‘not required to address undisputed matters’ or arguments about limitations with which it was never presented.” (quoting In re Nuvasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Also, we cautioned Patent Owner “that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.” Paper 8, 9; cf. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.”). Nevertheless, we have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 12 and find that the combination of Laracey and Jogu discloses these limitations as set forth by Petitioner. See Pet. 14–29, 32–33, 42–47, 52–54. d) Conclusion For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 12 are unpatentable over the combination of Laracey and Jogu.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,600,046 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,600,046
• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “‘It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.’” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. We agree with Petitioner there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. We find that the disclosure of the ’653 application—limited to general teachings of a smart card, an operating system, and a smart card manager—is insufficient to show possession of limitation [1(j)]. See Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. As we explained above, “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571−72. The ’653 Application contains no disclosure of replacing applications, even if the disclosure might render such replacing obvious, it is not sufficient to show the possession required to establish entitlement to a priority date. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’724 patent are entitled to a priority date no earlier than March 4, 2012.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Smith, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that “[t]he parties agree on the level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that it applies “the plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for all terms not expressly construed below,” and indicates that in parallel District Court litigation, the parties agreed to claim construction for the term “emulator device” to mean “hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.” Pet. 8. Petitioner proposes that the term “application” should be construed to mean “‘software program suitable for being executed on a portable device,’” but that the “distinction between the parties’ respective proposals need not be resolved for this proceeding.” Id. at 8–9. Petitioner finally contends that the phrase “a portion of or in entirety” in each independent claim means “in its entirety or partially,” but not both. Id. at 9. Patent Owner submits that “[t]he parties agree that the Board should construe ‘emulator device’ as ‘hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.’” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner “does not believe that any other terms require construction to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding.” Id. We apply the agreed upon constructions above, but otherwise find that no express constructions are necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that, even if the applications were stored in “generic memory” as Patent Owner contends, Zhu provides adequate security and would not undermine Petitioner’s motivation to combine. See Intel, 61 F.4th at 1380 (“It’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.”). Indeed, Zhu addresses the problem Patent Owner contends it would cause in the combination.3 As Zhu 3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should be precluded from discussing Zhu’s encryption embodiment because it was not raised in the Petition. See Sur-Reply 6–7. We disagree. The claims do not recite anything about how the data should be stored. Thus, it is not surprising that the Petition did not address it. Patent Owner raised the teaching away argument regarding the security of the data. See PO Resp. 12–16. Petitioner relies on the exact same mapping, same motivation, and same arguments why Zhu accounted for certain limitations. See Reply 4–11. Petitioner’s Reply merely explained that Zhu did address the problem Patent Owner contended would “teach away” from the combination. Indeed, Patent Owner was aware of Zhu’s teachings and addressed them in their Patent Owner Response. The Federal recognizes, “[l]oading one of the smart card applications already resident on the smart card to another memory location on the mobile device can provide sufficient memory for the selected smart card application, but can also create a security problem.” Ex. 1006 (Zhu), 3:25–34. To address this problem, Zhu proposes encrypting these applications in generic memory which “reduces the possibility of unauthorized access to the information.” Id. at 3:59–61, 8:30–55, 9:28–33; Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 5–6. Although acknowledging this disclosure, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver, testifies that Zhu’s encryption is inadequate and that encryption would have certain drawbacks. See Ex. 2002 (Weaver Decl.) ¶ 69. We find this testimony, which directly contradicts the teachings of Zhu that encryption is an adequate solution, lacks sufficient support to be entitled to much weight. Dr. Weaver provides no citations to support his contention that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would find encryption so inadequate or problematic as he now contends. Moreover, we find that Dr. Weaver’s testimony on cross examination provides an additional, independent basis to give this testimony little weight. On cross examination, Dr. Weaver contended that there was nothing uniquely inadequate about the particular encryption scheme disclosed in Zhu, but rather that his “opinion was more general, that encryption schemes known in the 2012 time frame were all breakable with computing power and time,” and thus, inadequate Circuit has explained that “the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That is the case here, so we find that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding Zhu’s encryption are proper. for storing payment applications in a mobile device’s general memory. Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 26:11–23; see also id. at 23:3–8 (“[D]oes encryption ever provide a sufficiently high security to permit storing payment application on a mobile device’s general memory? A. No”); 24:15–25:23 (testifying all publicly known encryption schemes in 2012 were breakable). However, when confronted with the fact that the ’724 patent discloses storing payment application on general baseband memory using an encryption method that was breakable, id. at 26:24–29:7, Dr. Weaver testified that this encryption method was sufficient to allow storing payment applications in general baseband memory even though it was “not perfectly secure,” id. at 29:8–14. Dr. Weaver provides no explanation or rationale why the encryption method in the ’724 patent, which he admits suffers from the same drawbacks he identified with respect to Zhu, is sufficient, but other encryption methods would not be sufficient. In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner attempts to rehabilitate Dr. Weaver’s testimony with justifications and qualifications not found in his original testimony. Sur-Reply 7–8. Yet, Dr. Weaver’s testimony discussed above was clear and unequivocal. See Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 24:15–29:14. Patent Owner made no effort to redirect his testimony at his deposition, so it cannot now do so through mere attorney argument. We find the inconsistency between Dr. Weaver’s treatment of Zhu and his treatment of similar disclosure in the ’724 patent exposes the insufficient reasoning supporting his opinions regarding the adequacy of Zhu’s use of encryption in the combination. Accordingly, we give no weight to his testimony that a skilled artisan would not have combined Zhu with a Buhot/GPC system due to security concerns. In contrast, we find the testimony of Mr. Smith regarding the use of encryption and the tradeoffs with the benefits of adopting Zhu’s memory management technique, which he offers in his Supplemental Declaration, to be well-reasoned, consistent with the disclosure of Zhu and the ’724 patent4, and entitled to substantial weight. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. As Petitioner recognizes, “‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As Mr. Smith and Dr. Weaver testified, decryption without access to the security keys is an extremely computationally intensive and time-consuming process. Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 6–8; Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 23:17–25:2; see also Ex. 10175, 132. Mr. Smith testifies that the benefits of using encryption would be sufficient to resolve the security concerns Patent Owner raises, and that any burden of generating a certificate would be outweighed by the benefits of using encryption and the memory advantages Zhu’s technique would offer. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. Accordingly, we find that Patent Owner’s security concerns would be” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,018,724 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,018,724
• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00950 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution

  Instituted inter partes review of claims 1–22 on all petitioned grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Markel – to accomplish Markel’s goal of a concealed electrode – is a reasonably sufficient basis or reason to combine the references. On this record, Petitioner demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to apply Nissilä’s electrode structure having a distinct exterior surface to the teachings of Markel because of the similarities in electrode structure and to achieve a stated goal of Markel. Nissilä’s electrode structure uses an external layer of “metal, electrically conductive plastic or a similar conductive material.” Ex. 1006, 5:32–37; Ex. 1003 ¶ 355 (“both references disclose an intermediate conductive material made of conductive plastic”). Petitioner has shown this structure could be adopted by Markel’s “hidden” electrode having a main body portion formed from conductive plastic and a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to achieve Markel’s stated goal of an electrode that is substantially concealed (or hidden) from a user. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 354. Even if a goal of Nissilä’s device is for the user to be aware of the electrodes to place them on their chest, as Patent Owner alleges, Petitioner shows that Markel’s concealment objective could be suitably achieved by use of Nissilä’s structure, even if Nissilä does not share a similar concealment objective. Id. ¶ 355 (“Markel’s hidden electrode is desirable because it increases aesthetics of the device while protecting the electrode from bumps or other damage.”). Based on the record before us, Petitioner has also shown sufficiently that a POSITA would be motivated to combine Markel and Nissilä to satisfy limitations [1.c.i], [1.c.ii], and [1.c.iii].” slip op. at 41

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ recitations are similar in scope. Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in education. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with both the scope of the claimed invention and the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that our decision would be the same adopting either proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to the preamble “[a]n electronic device for detecting a user’s cardiac signal,” as recited in elements [1.pre] and [15.pre], Petitioner submits that the language provides antecedent basis that defines language in the claim body. For example, [1.pre] and [15.pre] each recite “a user’s cardiac signal,” which is referred back to later in the claim bodies as “the user’s cardiac signal” . . . The phrase “a user” in [1.pre] and [15.pre] is referred back to in the claim bodies as part of “the user’s skin’s contact” . . . As another example, [15.pre] recites “An electronic device,” which is referred back to later in the claim body as “the electronic device” . . . Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the language “An electronic device for detecting a user’s cardiac signal” in [1.pre] and [15.pre] is limiting and should receive its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). We find Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the preamble of claims 1 and 15 persuasive. Petitioner has shown that the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, and is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,076,257
• Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–4 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. That burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we find that the ’286 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’286 patent is consistent with the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “To the extent necessary, we discuss the meaning of a claim term (“transaction data”) in our analysis below. We, however, need not construe explicitly any of the claim terms proposed by Petitioner to reach our decision about institution. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“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))). At this stage, neither party has identified any indication that the ’286 patent uses any term differently than it would ordinarily be used or any indication in the prosecution history that “compel[s] a limitation of the claim language different from its plain meaning” as alternatives. Schumer v. Lab. Comput. Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1311, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “To the extent Petitioner contends that Cho’s account information, though not explicitly providing for “transaction data,” “renders obvious” the claimed transaction data, Petitioner has not explained such a modification of Cho’s account information that would be necessary to arrive at the ’286 patent’s transaction data. Nor has Petitioner provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (C.A.Fed.2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S.at 418). Similarly, Petitioner does not explain how skilled artisans would have used Aaron to modify Cho’s system to meet the claimed transaction data. Rather, Petitioner relies on Aaron for teaching facilitating transactions. Pet. 57. Petitioner asserts that “Aaron explains what information is sent in transactions: ‘credit card numbers, debit card numbers, bank accounts, user accounts, user identifying information or other sensitive information.’” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 69). Yet, Petitioner does not explain how Aaron’s customer facing device that communicates with the payment service system 708 to submit a request for authorization of a transaction, the information being credit and debit card numbers, bank and user account information, and other identifying or sensitive information, would have been combined with Cho to render obvious accepting, providing, and converting transaction data—differentiated from account data—and facilitating transactions using that transaction data. Indeed, Petitioner’s contentions do not mention Aaron for limitation [1.1.1] (the initial recitation of transaction data) or for limitation [1.3.1] (where an audio signal is converted to transaction data). Pet. 40–43, 53–56. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,679,286
• Life Vac, LLC v. Dcstar Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · PGR2023-00032 · APJ Michael L Woods · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that claims 1–17 were more likely than not unpatentable over Lih, Tarrats, and da Costa or anticipated by Lih.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “institute an post-grant review if “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed definitions are similar, with a primary difference being that Petitioner’s definition more broadly includes people having experience with “medical devices in general.” Compare Pet. 18–19, with Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s standard is “unreasonably broad,” arguing that Patent Owner’s definition for a skilled artisan “more reasonably focuses on the nature of the subject invention.” Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have necessarily required experience with respiratory devices, as Patent Owner proposes. See Prelim. Resp. 6–7. We find Petitioner’s definition, which would include “a mechanical or biomedical engineer with at least 5 years of experience in designing or developing medical devices in general,” is consistent with the ’575 patent and the asserted prior art. Pet. 18–19; see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner expressly construes “bottom plate” and “check valve.” See Pet. 20–21. Patent Owner proposes a construction for “bottom plate,” “check valve,” and “connector.” Prelim Resp. 8–11. For purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not formally construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Each of the Challenged Claims requires a connector with a “bottom plate,” yet Petitioner fails to explain how the combined references would yield a connector with such a plate. See Prelim. Resp. 30–33 (arguing the same); see also Ex. 1001, 10:14–17 (independent claim 1), 10:46 (independent claim 3), 11:63 (independent claim 9); 12:35–36 (independent claim 13). Neither of Lih’s connector (element 118, Fig. 3) nor Tarrats’s “connector” (element 15, Fig. 1) has a “plate,” and Petitioner fails to explain how the lower surface of da Costa’s piston is being used to modify Lih’s or Tarrats’s connector to satisfy the claimed structure. See 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(5); see also Pet. 28–29. Further, Petitioner relies on da Costa’s heart resuscitating device, rather than its dechoking device, in modifying Lih. See Pet. 29 (citing da Costa’s Figure 6 and relief valves 55, 56). da Costa’s heart resuscitation device, however, is used for pumping air into a patient’s lungs for the purpose of initiating blood circulation in the event the patient’s heart stopped working. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 6:43–52. The pressure relief valves cited by Petitioner are presumably used to prevent over-pressurizing and under-pressurizing the patient’s lungs, which we understand would be dangerous for the patient. We do not see a skilled artisan as incorporating da Costa’s pressure relief valves into Lih’s choking intervention device, which is structured to prevent pumping air into a patient. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 4:3–5 (“bellows assembly 102 may include a relief valve 108 configured to allow air to escape . . . when the bellows 104 is being compressed”). Petitioner explains that the combination would “avoid pushing the obstruction farther into the user’s airway while in use and to initiate blood circulation” (see Pet. 29), yet Lih’s valve 108 already “avoid[s] pushing the obstruction farther into the user’s airway” and “initiat[ing] blood circulation” benefits a heart-resuscitation device, not Lih’s dechoking device. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that the proposed combination lacks sufficient reasoning. See Prelim. Resp. 33–37. We further agree with Patent Owner that modifying Lih’s device so that it pumps air into a patient’s lungs for the purpose of “initiating blood circulation,” as reasoned by Petitioner (see Pet. 29), would render Lih’s device unsuitable as a dechoking device, which is its intended purpose. See Prelim. Resp. 37–38 (arguing the same). To reiterate, Lih’s dechoking device avoids introducing air into the patient’s lungs, which would further lodge an obstruction in the patient’s trachea. See Ex. 1004, 4:3–5.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,478,575
• Google LLC v. Nobots LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · IPR2022-00941 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3–9, 11, and 13–20 are unpatentable under §103 over the asserted prior-art combinations; claims 1, 2, 10, and 12 were disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “d) Analysis Having considered the parties’ respective positions, we conclude that Petitioner’s view as to meaning of “not denying access” is more consistent with the ’885 patent, and the record at hand, than Patent Owner’s view. In that respect, we agree that “not denying access” is “broader” than “granting access” and encompasses other possible acts in which access is not denied,” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “We determine that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any other claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only terms in controversy must be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (citing Vivid Techs in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field with coursework relating to computer science, plus two years’ academic and/or industry experience in computer security. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of skill. PO Resp. 15–16. 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 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We conclude, at this time, that Petitioner’s reasoning is sound, and amply supported by record evidence. We also conclude that the record readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of O’Sullivan and Willner to arrive at the invention of the relevant claims of the ’885 patent. On the record before us, we are not satisfied that either Patent Owner’s arguments or the testimony of its declarant, Samuel Russ, Ph.D., suitably take into account what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have gleaned from the teachings of O’Sullivan and Willner. See, e.g., Prelim Resp. 16, 25–27; Ex. 2101 ¶¶ 85–88. In that respect, and on the current record, we credit Dr. Lopresti’s testimony (e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78, 79) over the countervailing testimony of Dr. Russ, as, in our view, Dr. Lopresti’s testimony better reflects what a skilled artisan would have understood in combining the teachings of O’Sullivan and Willner. Furthermore, although, as Patent Owner notes, the Petition does not use the specific phrase “reasonable expectation of success” (see, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 15), that such an expectation is present flows intrinsically from Petitioner’s and Dr. Lopresti’s explanation underscoring the proposed ground. Inst. Dec. 18–19.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 10,423,885 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,423,885
• Google LLC v. Nobots LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · IPR2022-00940 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 and 20 are unpatentable; claims 18 and 19 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted grounds failed to establish the required limitations for those claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’008 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field with coursework relating to computer science, plus two years’ academic and/or industry experience in computer security. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of skill. PO Resp. 2. 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 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “In considering Patent Owner’s explanation, and upon further reflection, we agree with Patent Owner’s reading of the pertinent sentence. In that regard, consistent with the remainder of the Specification of the ’008 patent, it follows that the noted sentence does not alter the contours of “acquired” data to also encompass “passive” data where that premise is entirely absent from other portions of the Specification. Rather, as Patent Owner explains, the sentence is consistent with the understanding that it is “active data” that is connected to the word “acquired” and “passive data” that is connected to the word “available.” See, e.g., id. Patent Owner’s explanation alleviates the ambiguity that was postulated in the Institution Decision. We have considered Petitioner’s views to the contrary (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 21–25) but find them unavailing. In particular, Petitioner does not reconcile its position that, although acknowledging that “acquired data” is defined in the ’008 patent, the term “acquiring” is not so defined and should be regarded as an “individual word” whose meaning is somehow entirely unconnected to “acquired.” See, e.g., Pet. Reply 21. We note, as we did in the Institution Decision, that the ’008 patent states that “acquired data” and “its equivalents and verb forms” is “a type of active data.” See Inst. Dec. 30 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:25–32). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s view (see, identifiable as a verb form of “acquired.” See PO Sur-reply 8. We determine that, in the context of the ’008 patent, it clearly is. Having considered the competing views of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we conclude that Patent Owner’s construction of the term “acquiring interest data” is consistent with, and supported by, the Specification of the ’008 patent. In that regard, we conclude that, as is advanced by Patent Owner, “acquiring interest data” must encompass the retrieval of some active data.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “1–3 and 6–17 are found in Willner. Pet. 9–26. During trial, Patent Owner presented no arguments challenging Petitioner’s proposed ground of unpatentability of claims 1–3 and 6–17 based on Willner. During oral argument, upon questioning, counsel for Patent Owner expressed that “We did not present any arguments on Claims 1 to 3, 6 to 17 on Ground 1.” Tr. 30:3–4. We determine that Petitioner, via its Petition, has established adequately where all the features of claims 1–3 and 6–17 are present in Willner. See Pet. 9–26. Given that determination, and in the absence of any argument during trial challenging Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability based on Willner as to those claims, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3 and 6–17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Willner.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Here, we conclude that: (1) the parties’ recognized level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 4; PO Resp. 2); (2) the knowledge of a skilled artisan as set forth by record evidence, including the teachings of Willner and Kitts; and (3) the nature of the problem addressed in both of those references, i.e., click fraud detection, all support a determination that a skilled artisan would have had adequate reasons to combine Willner and Kitts, and would have had a reasonable expectation in doing so. To that end, we find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition as to the proposed reasoning to combine Willner and Kitts, and also credit Dr. Lopresti’s supporting testimony. See Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118. We are mindful of the contrasting testimony referenced by Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Russ. See, e.g., PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 107–110). Dr. Russ testifies that, in his view, there are “practical” and “technical” “considerations” in combining Willner and Kitts that a “POSA would have had to consider in determining whether a reasonable expectation of success exists, none of which are addressed or discussed in the Petition.” See Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 107–110. The example considerations listed by Dr. Russ are reproduced below: 1. How Kitts’ passive data could be collected and stored in conjunction with the mouse vector data already being collected by Willner; 2. How to collectively analyze fundamentally different types of data—Willner’s mouse vector data on one hand, and Kitts’ passive data on the other; 3. How to generate a useful confidence score that is more accurate than the scores already generated by Willner, again taking into consideration that passive data is a fundamentally different type of data than active data; assessment using the complex statistical model of Kitts; and 5. To what extent additional computer hardware would be necessary to enable the combined system to effectively operate and whether such hardware could be reasonably implemented, taking into consideration both cost and feasibility. Ex. 2011 ¶ 108. Those considerations are generally directed to collection and use of” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 9,595,008 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,595,008

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.