- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00639 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–35 are unpatentable as obvious over Ellsberry and Halbert, based on the combination and the general knowledge of a skilled artisan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner indicates that it applies the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner for this proceeding. Resp. 31. On this record, we accept Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art except that we omit the qualifier “at least” before years of experience because it may encompass levels that are beyond ordinary and render the level ambiguous. Otherwise, we find Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art consistent with the ’339 patent and the applied prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“1. “Rank” and “Rank Select Signal” Petitioner discusses the terms “rank” and “rank select signal” in the claim construction section of its Petition. Pet. 8–10. Petitioner contends that a “rank select signal” is also known as a “chip-select signal” and alleges that the ’339 patent uses the terms consistently with the JEDEC standards of the time. Id. at 8–9. Petitioner also contends that the term “bank” has been replaced over time with “rank.” Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1041, 318–20 (discussing DIMMs, ranks, banks, and arrays), 413 (Fig. 10.5)). Although Petitioner cites a definition of “rank” (id. at 9), Petitioner does not propose that this definition should be applied in this case. See id. at 8–10. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s discussion of the terms “rank” and “rank select signal.” See Resp. As there is no evidence of any dispute concerning these terms, we need not construe them. See Nidec, supra.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“3. Means Plus Function Petitioner contends “it is . . . not necessary to determine whether any terms of the 339 Patent are governed by § 112,¶6, given that Ellsberry alone or in view of Halbert matches the disclosure of the 339 Patent.” Pet. at 10–11 (citing Pet. 11–38 (§§IV.E–G)). When claims do not mention the word “means,” there is a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner provide any evidence to rebut the presumption here that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply to the ’339 patent’s claims in the absence of any mention of the word “means.” Accordingly, we do not construe any limitation of the ’339 patent’s claims as “means plus function” under § 112, ¶ 6.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“In cases where there is a known problem and the proposed combination is a predictable solution to it, a reason to combine has been shown. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (placing a sensor on a nonmoving point was a predictable solution to known wire-chafing problem); Intel v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (a reference’s switch was a known solution to a feedthrough problem). Petitioner has demonstrated that the problem of bus conflicts was known in DIMMs, and that tristate buffers were a solution to it. Pet. 78 (citing Ex. 1035, 89–90); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 239–240, 264, 366, 373. Using Halbert’s tristate buffers in Ellsberry amounts to combining familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 10,949,339 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,949,339 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 17, 2023 · IPR2023-00205 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–20 are obvious over Hiraishi and Butt, with Ellsberry or Kim added for certain dependent claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have been someone with an advanced degree in electrical or computer engineering and at least two years of work experience in the field of memory module design and operation, or a bachelor’s degree in such engineering disciplines and at least three years of work experience in the field,” and would have had knowledge of various standards for memory, such as Joint Electron Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC) standards, and circuitry used in memories. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). Patent Owner asserts that it is “applying the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” PO Resp. 11. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill with the exception of the phrase “at least,” which introduces vagueness as to the amount of experience.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We agree with the parties that we need not construe expressly any claim terms to decide the issues before us. See Pet. 9; PO Resp. 11; see also 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, 9 The parties do not present arguments related to objective evidence of nonobviousness (i.e., secondary considerations) as to any of the challenged claims. Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments because, as Petitioner points out, the evidence shows that DDR3 devices do not always have edge-aligned data and strobes. See Pet. Reply 4. In particular, Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Mangione-Smith testifies that the DDR3 standard allows a 200 picosecond maximum DQS-to-DQ skew, “which is a very tight tolerance considering the speed at which the memory devices are operating.” Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 122–125 (citing Ex. 1020, 164). During cross-examination of Dr. Mangione-Smith, Petitioner established that a 200 picosecond tolerance is actually a misalignment of over 28 degrees considering the 2.5 Pet. Reply 4 (discussing this testimony). Thus, the evidence shows that DDR3 data and strobes are not always edge-aligned. Patent Owner dismisses this, stating that “Petitioner’s argument is tantamount to saying that the JEDEC standard prescribes a tolerance for DQS/DQ skew that causes errors, which runs counter to the entire standard-setting process.” PO Sur-reply 3–4. On the contrary, we find that Petitioner’s showing underscores that Butt’s read training has direct applicability to a memory that may potentially skew by as much as 28 degrees. Butt explains that read training is used “to establish optimum DQS strobe settings” and thereby “enables a reliable data read operation for high speed applications.” Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 33, 36; see Pet. 44–47 (discussing this disclosure). As the Supreme Court has stated, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. “This is the so-called ‘known-technique’ rationale. And if there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). We find that Butt’s read training is such a known technique that would improve Hiraishi’s memory based on the benefits identified in Butt and discussed above, i.e., “establish[ing] optimum DQS strobe settings” to enable “reliable data read operation for high speed applications.” Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 33, 36. timing operation” to account for flight time differences between memory devices, pointing to Hiraishi’s retiming operation that is performed after the data are loaded in FIFO (Read) circuit 302. PO Resp. 45 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 130). But Petitioner’s obviousness contentions are based on adjusting the timing of strobes before the data are registered in (loaded into) FIFO (Read) circuit 302. See Pet. 35–37 (asserting that the delayed read strobe is “the DQS signal supplied to FIFO (Read) circuit 302,” which is then used to register the data in FIFO (Read) circuit 302). Thus, Patent Owner is pointing to an entirely different operation. Furthermore, even if Hiraishi discloses some mechanism to cope with misaligned data and strobes, we find that Butt’s technique is a “suitable option” in combination with Hiraishi. See Intel, 61 F.4th at 1381. Indeed, in such a case, Hiraishi and Butt “address the same problem,” and Butt’s read training “was a known way to address that problem[, which] is precisely the reason that there’s a motivation to combine under KSR and [Federal Circuit] precedent.” Intel, 61 F.4th at 1380. Thus, it is not necessary for Petitioner to “identify what details are allegedly missing from Hiraishi which are being provided by Butt,” as asserted by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 44.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“During the oral hearing, Petitioner argued that the 236 FD has collateral estoppel effect in this proceeding to resolve the disputed issues conclude that the claims are unpatentable as obvious based on the record in this proceeding and, therefore, do not rely on collateral estoppel. We further note that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has “held that an IPR decision does not have collateral estoppel effect until that decision is affirmed or the parties waive their appeal rights.” United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C., 890 F.3d 1282, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A]n affirmance of an invalidity finding, whether from a district court or the Board, has a collateral estoppel effect on all pending or co-pending actions.”)). No notice of appeal has been filed yet in IPR2022-00236, and the time for filing an appeal has not yet expired.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,860,506 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,860,506 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00711 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Hiraishi and Butt, with Ellsberry or Kim added for certain dependent claims; the Tokuhiro grounds were not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have been someone with an advanced degree in electrical or computer engineering and at least two years of work experience in the field of memory module design and operation, or a bachelor’s degree in such engineering disciplines and at least three years of work experience in the field,” and would have had knowledge of various standards for memory, such as Joint Electron Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC) standards, and circuitry used in memories. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). Patent Owner asserts that it is “applying the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” PO Resp. 11. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill with the exception of the phrase “at least,” which introduces vagueness as to the amount of experience.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We agree with the parties that we need not construe expressly any claim terms to decide the issues before us. See Pet. 9; PO Resp. 11; see also 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,” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments because, as Petitioner points out, the evidence shows that DDR3 devices do not always have edge-aligned data and strobes. See Pet. Reply 4. In particular, Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Mangione-Smith testifies that the DDR3 standard allows a 200 picosecond maximum DQS-to-DQ skew, “which is a very tight tolerance considering the speed at which the memory devices are operating.” Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 122–125 (citing Ex. 1020, 164). During cross-examination of Dr. Mangione-Smith, Petitioner established that a 200 picosecond tolerance is actually a misalignment of over 28 degrees considering the 2.5 Pet. Reply 4 (discussing this testimony). Thus, the evidence shows that DDR3 data and strobes are not always edge-aligned. Patent Owner dismisses this, stating that “Petitioner’s argument is tantamount to saying that the JEDEC standard prescribes a tolerance for DQS/DQ skew that causes errors, which runs counter to the entire standard-setting process.” PO Sur-reply 3–4. On the contrary, we find that Petitioner’s showing underscores that Butt’s read training has direct applicability to a memory that may potentially skew by as much as 28 degrees. Butt explains that read training is used “to establish optimum DQS strobe settings” and thereby “enables a reliable data read operation for high speed applications.” Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 33, 36; see Pet. 44–47 (discussing this disclosure). As the Supreme Court has stated, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. “This is the so-called ‘known-technique’ rationale. And if there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). We find that Butt’s read training is such a known technique that would improve Hiraishi’s memory based on the benefits identified in Butt and discussed above, i.e., “establish[ing] optimum DQS strobe settings” to enable “reliable data read operation for high speed applications.” Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 33, 36. timing operation” to account for flight time differences between memory devices, pointing to Hiraishi’s retiming operation that is performed after the data are loaded in FIFO (Read) circuit 302. PO Resp. 45 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 130). But Petitioner’s obviousness contentions are based on adjusting the timing of strobes before the data are registered in (loaded into) FIFO (Read) circuit 302. See Pet. 35–37 (asserting that the delayed read strobe is “the DQS signal supplied to FIFO (Read) circuit 302,” which is then used to register the data in FIFO (Read) circuit 302). Thus, Patent Owner is pointing to an entirely different operation. Furthermore, even if Hiraishi discloses some mechanism to cope with misaligned data and strobes, we find that Butt’s technique is a “suitable option” in combination with Hiraishi. See Intel, 61 F.4th at 1381. Indeed, in such a case, Hiraishi and Butt “address the same problem,” and Butt’s read training “was a known way to address that problem[, which] is precisely the reason that there’s a motivation to combine under KSR and [Federal Circuit] precedent.” Intel, 61 F.4th at 1380. Thus, it is not necessary for Petitioner to “identify what details are allegedly missing from Hiraishi which are being provided by Butt,” as asserted by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 44.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“For the reasons discussed above and based on Petitioner’s contentions and evidence, we find that the combination of Hiraishi and Butt teaches “delay[ing] the first read strobe by a first predetermined amount to generate a first delayed read strobe,” “wherein the first predetermined amount is determined based at least on signals received by the first data buffer during one or more previous operations,” as well as the “sample” and “transmit” operations recited in claim 1. We also find, as discussed above, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hiraishi and Butt and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention. c) Conclusion for Claim 1 We conclude that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious based on the combined teachings of Hiraishi and Butt.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 10,860,506 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,860,506 - Samsung Display Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v. Polaris Powerled Technologies, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00771 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5 and 7 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 7 are unpatentable over Kim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369. At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious. slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have [had] a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or equivalent field, with 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in OLED display engineering or comparable industry.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44–45). Petitioner further asserts that “[a]dditional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” Id. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art, and “applies Petitioner’s definition.” Prelim. Resp. 12. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, and, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“3. Analysis At this stage of the proceeding, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. 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))). After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, and on this record, we do not observe a dispute over the meanings of these terms. Accordingly, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“2. Analysis of Independent Claim 1 Petitioner contends that Kim teaches each limitation of independent claim 1. Pet. 19–45. In support, Petitioner identifies certain passages and figures in the references and explains their significance with respect to the corresponding claim limitation. Id. a) [1-Pre]: An active matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) display system comprising an AMOLED display panel receiving a video signal to be displayed on the AMOLED display panel, the AMOLED display panel comprising a plurality of organic light emitting diode (OLED) pixel elements, the AMOLED display system comprising: Petitioner contends that Kim “discloses ‘a light emitting display and a driving method’ for ‘an organic EL (electroluminescent) display’ consisting of multiple pixel circuits ‘for driving an organic EL element (OLED)’ and which can use an ‘active matrix’ method.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 5–7). Petitioner relies on Figure 3 of Kim and its corresponding description, including organic EL display panel 100 and pixel circuits 10, to contend that Kim’s “data voltage from the data line Dm” teaches the claimed “video signal to be displayed on the AMOLED display panel.” Pet. 20–21. Petitioner contends that, if not anticipated, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would find it obvious that the Kim system could receive a video signal, and use that signal as the source for the ‘video signals’ explicitly discussed in Kim.” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–104).” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,259,521 - Trend Micro, Inc. v. Webroot Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00662 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review. B.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“4 Petitioner also cites page 10 of Tahan, but we find no mention of either SVP or SVM there, and Petitioner does not explain where it might be disclosed. 5 Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition based on the state of the related litigation. See Prelim. Resp. 3–18.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, or a related field, or an equivalent technical degree or equivalent work experience, and an additional one to two years of education or experience in the field of computer security topics such as malware/exploit detection and/or machine learning” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 94). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill.” Prelim. Resp. 29. 1 Gil Tahan, et al., Mal-ID: Automatic Malware Detection Using Common Segment Analysis and Meta-Features, Journal of Machine Learning Research 13, 949–979 (April 13, 2012) (Exhibit 1003). 2 Eitan Menahem, et al., Improving Malware Detection by Applying Multi- Inducer Ensemble, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 53, 1483–1494 (2009) (Exhibit 1004). 3 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0254992 A1 (Exhibit 1005). For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’844 patent. B.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meanings.” Pet. 9. For its part, Patent Owner “agree[s] that no claim terms need be construed for this petition,” and that “all claim terms should carry their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the intrinsic record.” Prelim. Resp. 27. We find that no express claim construction is necessary to resolve the institution question. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,599,844 - Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00794 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 6–8 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art combinations did not establish the claimed messaging through the server system.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Tr. 78:6–10. Patent Owner responded “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination.” Tr. 78:13–14. We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems.” See Inst. Dec. 10. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ289 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. media player Patent Owner contends that, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’289 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 92–93). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player.’” Pet. Reply 1. Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software. Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 24–27)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device.” Pet. Reply 2 (alteration in original). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Muthukumarasamy “controls delivery of selected media content and selects and controls the media devices that deliver the selected media content according to a media type of the selected media content.” Because Muthukumarasamy teaches that the media device displays media content from various disparate sources depending on the media type and media source, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood the media device loads an appropriate media player depending on the media type and source. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 47; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67). Petitioner, however, proffers insufficient evidence or argument that the content choices described in paragraph 47 of Muthukumarasamy would have led an ordinarily skilled artisan to understand a media player is obtained and loaded in the content presentation device. Rather, Dr. Bederson makes conclusory statements without providing evidence to support the assertions (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67).” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Muthukumarasamy discussed above. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more messages in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file,” and “identify a location of the particular media player.” Pet. 41–45. More specifically, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate control of internet content presented at the content presentation device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward.” Pet. 65. However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the content presentation device” (Pet. Reply 22), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required messages being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward teaches “receiving, in a server system, one or more messages from a personal computing device . . . wherein the one or more messages, . . . identify a particular media player for playing content from the file wherein the media player is a computer application operable to present content and control presentation of the content,” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 6. Additionally, because claim 2 depends from claim 1 and claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that the subject matter of claims 2, 7, and 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 8,904,289 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,904,289 - Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00795 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 5–9 were not shown unpatentable over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward because the claimed signals identifying a media player were not shown to pass through the asserted server system.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ251 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“1. Media player Patent Owner contends, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’251 Patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 81–92, 95)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 23–26)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (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 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We determine that Hayward does not cure the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy discussed supra. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more signals in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing the video content” (Pet. 38–41). More specifically, Petitioner contends “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward” (Pet. 15, 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 60, 102)). However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device . . .” (Pet. Reply 22 (emphasis omitted)), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required signals being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,356,251 - Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00793 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ528 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“‘media player’ in the ’528 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 83–91, 94)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 21–24)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (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
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded. Even if the zHub and the zNode would be used to control the volume on the TV on which the streamed content is displayed, this device cooperation does not show the particular messaging recited in the claim. More specifically, even under Petitioner’s scenario that the “Volume Up” command flows from the IED (“personal computing device”) through the zHub/zNode (“server system”) to the TV (“content presentation device”), this command does not “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file.” Petitioner has not shown any messages in Muthukumarasamy that “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file” and flow from the IED through the zHub/zNode to the content presentation device. Thus, Petitioner’s assertions about devices working together fall short of proving by preponderant evidence that Muthukumarasamy discloses the particular messaging contents and path recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,782,528 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,782,528 - Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00594 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 45–46; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals. Second, we have also considered Mr. Schmandt’s testimony, and he provides no meaningful additional information to support reading Shimizu as Petitioner advocates. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 118, 120–127. In testimony not cited by Petitioner, Mr. Schmandt admits that “Shimizu does not appear to disclose further details about how duration information is specified or stored within its system, or whether such intervals between nodes can be changed.” Id. ¶ 119. This testimony undermines Petitioner’s position that Shimizu’s hypertext nodes include duration information. Mr. Schmandt elaborates in testimony that Petitioner cites, but does not explain: In a real-world implementation of the proposed combination, for example, the display time could have been specified within the node information structure 9 of Shimizu. I note that node information structure 9 in Shimizu also contains display procedure slot 62 (Fig. 6), which points to “a procedure program function used when the node in question is to be displayed on the screen.” (Shimizu, 6:52–55.) Shimizu thus contemplates that node information structure 9 may contain information about how the node will be displayed to the user, and as such, it would have been obvious that durational information could also have been included as part of node information structure 9. This durational amount could have been a default display time specified by the user, or a display time specific to the node in question, as explained above. * * * Shimizu itself clearly contemplates the ability to customize the display of nodes, and as explained above, node information structure 9 (Fig. 6) includes display procedure slot 62 which points to a program function or procedure used to display the node content, thus making clear that node information structure 9 can hold information about how the node will be displayed. Id. ¶¶ 123, 127. Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that Shimizu would need to be modified for its hypertext nodes to include duration information is strong evidence that Shimizu does not disclose hypertext nodes that include duration information. This testimony (from ¶ 123) also suggests that Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times could be included in the procedure program function to which display procedure slot 62 points, rather than in the hypertext node, thereby providing additional evidence Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times are included in structure other than hypertext nodes. See also Ex. 1003, 6:52–55.” slip op. at 27
- BurdenInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 45–46; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals. Second, we have also considered Mr. Schmandt’s testimony, and he provides no meaningful additional information to support reading Shimizu as Petitioner advocates. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 118, 120–127. In testimony not cited by Petitioner, Mr. Schmandt admits that “Shimizu does not appear to disclose further details about how duration information is specified or stored within its system, or whether such intervals between nodes can be changed.” Id. ¶ 119. This testimony undermines Petitioner’s position that Shimizu’s hypertext nodes include duration information. Mr. Schmandt elaborates in testimony that Petitioner cites, but does not explain: In a real-world implementation of the proposed combination, for example, the display time could have been specified within the node information structure 9 of Shimizu. I note that node information structure 9 in Shimizu also contains display procedure slot 62 (Fig. 6), which points to “a procedure program function used when the node in question is to be displayed on the screen.” (Shimizu, 6:52–55.) Shimizu thus contemplates that node information structure 9 may contain information about how the node will be displayed to the user, and as such, it would have been obvious that durational information could also have been included as part of node information structure 9. This durational amount could have been a default display time specified by the user, or a display time specific to the node in question, as explained above. * * * Shimizu itself clearly contemplates the ability to customize the display of nodes, and as explained above, node information structure 9 (Fig. 6) includes display procedure slot 62 which points to a program function or procedure used to display the node content, thus making clear that node information structure 9 can hold information about how the node will be displayed. Id. ¶¶ 123, 127. Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that Shimizu would need to be modified for its hypertext nodes to include duration information is strong evidence that Shimizu does not disclose hypertext nodes that include duration information. This testimony (from ¶ 123) also suggests that Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times could be included in the procedure program function to which display procedure slot 62 points, rather than in the hypertext node, thereby providing additional evidence Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times are included in structure other than hypertext nodes. See also Ex. 1003, 6:52–55.” slip op. at 27
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Certain terms recited in the challenged claims were construed during prior litigation of the ’451 patent, i.e., an ancestor of the challenged ’819 patent that Petitioner characterizes as “shar[ing] a near-verbatim written description with the ’819 patent”). Ex. 1023 (claim construction order in cases involving Microsoft and Apple); Ex. 2003, 5 (clarification of certain claim constructions on summary judgment); Pet. 8–9. Patent Owner advocates that we adopt such prior constructions in this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 6. Although “Petitioner does not believe express claim construction is necessary at this time,” Petitioner takes the position that its asserted prior art “renders the challenged claims obvious under the district court’s constructions.” Pet. 10. And we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition “presents extensive arguments” that apply the district court’s constructions. See Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Pet. 9–10, 12–20, 33). We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1023, 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 8–10. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 1, 16, 23, and 26, as well as in certain dependent claims, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1023, 2–13; Ex. 2003, 5; Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Third, we construe “interactively variable duration information,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 1, 23, and 26, as “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1023, 22–23; Prelim. Resp. 10–12.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web.” Pet. 7. Petitioner adds that “[s]uch a person could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–18). Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately 3-5 years of professional experience with these topics.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6. In addition, Patent Owner say that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Petitioner supports its proposal with testimony by Dr. Schmandt. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 16. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. See id. (Dr. Schmandt testifying that “Patent Owner’s proposed articulation is not meaningfully different” and that his “analysis, opinions and conclusions . . . would not change if Patent Owner’s articulation were applied”). Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 13
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,606,819 - Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00593 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 22–62 were unpatentable under the asserted §103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 39; see also id. at 45–46 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner
“E. Real Parties in Interest Petitioner identifies Google LLC and YouTube, LLC as real parties in interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies Robocast, Inc., as a real party in interest. Paper 5, 2.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner supports its proposal with testimony by Dr. Schmandt. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 16. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. See id. (Dr. Schmandt testifying that “Patent Owner’s proposed articulation is not meaningfully different” and that his analysis, opinions and conclusions . . . would not change if Patent Owner’s articulation were applied”). Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1123, 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 10–12. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 22 and 46, as well as dependent claim 45, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1123, 2–13; Ex. 2107, 5; Prelim. Resp. 9. For purposes of this Decision, we accord all other terms recited in the challenged claims their plain and ordinary meaning. See Ex. 1123, 17–20, 26–29 (court adopting plain and ordinary meaning of “plurality of accessible resources,” “content,” “without requiring user input,” “in accordance with said show structure,” “providing,” and “search results”); see Prelim. Resp. 8 (Patent Owner advocating that “any additional claim language be[] accorded its plain and ordinary meaning”).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,965,932
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.