• Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6

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

    “The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent 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))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Chongqing Yanmei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Terves, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 27, 2024 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–61, 63–77, and 79 are unpatentable as anticipated by Doud; claims 78, 80, and 81 are not shown unpatentable. The contingent motion to amend is granted in part and denied in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Ph.D. in chemistry, metallurgy, or material science or material engineering” or, in the alternative, “would have a Bachelor of Science or Master of Science degree in one of these disciplines plus experience involving the use and design of dissolvable metal alloys for use in creating tools and other downhole parts for well drilling or completion activities.” Pet. 13–14. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s contentions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 12 n.4. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan as it is consistent with the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

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

    “With respect to claim 19, Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “in situ precipitate” and “a plurality of particles of said in situ precipitate having a size of no more than 50 µm.” Pet. 11–12. With respect to claims 76–81, Petitioner proposes a construction for the term “wherein said additive material includes one or more metal materials selected from the group consisting of 0.1–35 wt. % copper, 0.1–24.5 wt. % nickel and 0.1–20 wt. % cobalt.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner contends no claims require construction for purposes of this Decision. PO Resp. 12 n.4, 17–18; Mot. 16–17. Upon review of the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateWritten description adequateMixed

    “Ex. 2027, 20:25–21:5 (emphasis added). The disclosure that the “magnesium composite” of “[t]he present invention” “includes at least 50 wt% magnesium” is unambiguous and constitutes strong evidence that the inventors were not in possession of a magnesium composite with less than 50 wt. % magnesium, or additive concentrations above 50 wt. %. See SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovasular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that a description of the “present invention” as having a particular structure “is strong evidence that the claims should not be read to encompass the opposite structure”). Consistent with this conclusion, the original claims of the ’295 application all limited the additive material in the composite to 0.05 wt %–45 wt %. Ex. 2027, 26:1– 13, 29:9–15. Likewise, in each example where copper, nickel, or cobalt additives are used in the range recited in the proposed substitute claims, the magnesium composite is “over 50 wt% magnesium,” and any claims that do not require this range of magnesium are limited to an additive range of “about 0.05 wt%–45 wt% of said mixture.”8 Ex. 2027, 6:13–7:4, 7:16–19, 8 Written description support is considered from the view point of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Patent Owner, bearing the burden to show written description support in any priority application for which it seeks the benefit of its filing date, provides no testimony from an ordinarily skilled artisan regarding written description support in the ’295 application, or any evidence to show what such an artisan would conclude from the express disclosures of the ’295 application. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7; In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that “a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Where there is any ambiguity in the disclosures of the ’295 application, the absence of supporting testimony tends to cut against 26:2–31:2; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12, 13, 18, 19, 16–21, 26, 28, claims 16–21, 26– 28. In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that the inventors of the priority applications were in possession of a magnesium cast composite that included less than 50 wt. % magnesium, or greater than 50 wt. % additives. As proposed substitute claim 104 encompasses a magnesium cast composite with up to 90 wt. % additives, and therefore as little as 10 wt. % magnesium, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the full scope of this claim finds written description support in any application prior to the ’915 application, filed on October 12, 2018.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteIndefiniteMixed

    “The definiteness requirement of § 112(a) is satisfied when “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable clarity.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (changing the claim construction standard used to review a claim proposed in a motion to amend from the broadest reasonable construction to the “same construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b)”). Proposed substitute claim 104 generically requires “in situ precipitate” and also a specific type of in situ precipitate: “in situ galvanically-active intermetallic precipitate.” Mot. Appendix A. Although this claim would have best been clarified by Patent Owner after seeking preliminary guidance on its Motion to Amend, upon review of the written description, claims, and figures of the ’740 patent, as well as Patent Owner’s clarification in its Reply to the Opposition, we agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “in situ galvanically-active intermetallic precipitate” is merely a more complete description of the “in situ precipitate” mentioned earlier in the sentence. Mot. Reply 4. As such, we do not find that this part of proposed substitute claim renders claim 104 indefinite.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,689,740 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,740
• Infineon Technologies AG v. Amatech Group LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 8–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3 and 11 were not shown unpatentable, and claim 7 was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification currently before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For purposes of our Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” See Pet. 8. In addition, we note that we agree with Patent Owner’s statement that the distinction between the parties’ proposals is not material to any dispute before us and we find that our determinations would be the same under either definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded that Dr. van der Weide’s cited testimony is of a nature that should lead us to give his testimony no weight. We note that Patent Owner did not move to strike or exclude Dr. van der Weide’s testimony. When considering credibility and weight of evidence below, we consider Dr. van der Weide’s testimony as a whole as well as all other evidence of record and accord it the appropriate weight.” slip op. at 7

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

    “provide an express construction of the full breadth of a claim term. “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms ... that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As such, we proceed in line with Federal Circuit case law, which “prescribes—deciding only the issues necessary to resolve the dispute before it.” Nichia Corp. v. DSS, Inc., No. 2022-1704, 2023 WL 7211097, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 2, 2023) (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). The Federal Circuit has long recognized that “[c]laim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope” and that claim construction may be required in an obviousness context “when the meaning or scope of technical terms and words of art is unclear and in dispute and requires resolution in order to determine obviousness.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In order to determine whether Petitioner’s obviousness grounds meet their required burden of proof, we need not expressly state the full scope of this claim term. Thus, we are within our authority to proffer a construction that determines the scope of a claim term in a manner sufficient to determine whether the asserted art teaches the claim. In other words, there may be other ways to meet the disputed limitation, but for the purposes of our Decision, it is proper to expressly determine a claim term’s scope only as much as is required to resolve the disputed issues before us.” slip op. at 17

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

    “the invention(s), but rather as examples of some of the embodiments.” Id. at 25:65–26:1; see also id. at 6:18–20 (embodiments “should be construed as illustrative rather than limiting”), 5:22–24 (“non-limiting example”). The Federal Circuit has noted that “[e]mbodiments in the specification—even if there is only one embodiment—cannot limit the scope of the claims absent the patentee’s ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., 25 F.4th 960, 967 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Hill- Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). After reviewing the complete record, we see no such manifest exclusion or restriction in the ’240 patent specification. We decline Patent Owner’s request to limit the claims to the described single-frequency embodiments. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. We need not provide further express construction of this claim language for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 9,165,240 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,165,240
• PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00076 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 8–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2–7 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner did not establish motivation to combine for their error-processing limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent field” and “two years of prior experience with image capturing/scanning technology, involving transferring and processing of image data to and at a server.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 45). Petitioner further asserts that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Id. For purposes of the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal (Inst. Dec. 16), and neither party alleges that a different level of ordinary skill should be applied in this proceeding (see PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply). In this Decision, we again adopt the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner. We are satisfied that it generally comports with the level of and the asserted prior art. Accord Inst. Dec. 15–16.” slip op. at 11

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

    “In the Petition, Petitioner states that it is unnecessary to construe any claim terms or phrases (Pet. 12–14), but for two phrases in claim 1, Petitioner specifically argues that the prior art teaches or suggests the phrase under each of two alternate meanings (id. at 34–35, 37). In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner’s primary understanding of these phrases and, as a result, did not reach the alternative contentions. Inst. Dec. 33 n.18, 38 n.21. At trial, Patent Owner states that claim construction is unnecessary to resolve the issues disputed in this proceeding. PO Resp. 6; Tr. 46:4–16. Petitioner agrees, but contends that Patent Owner’s arguments regarding dependent claim 3 are premised on a narrowing construction of one of its terms. Tr. 15:4–16:2. Patent Owner contends that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms in that claim should apply. Id. at 46:12–16. We agree that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad 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 12

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “motivated to add error processing to Garcia’s mobile phone so that it could address errors before transmitting the check image in order “to avoid wasting communications resources and adding delays.” Pet. 42. But, Petitioner does not support this rationale with a persuasive explanation or evidence. Indeed, we assume that Petitioner’s theory is that the error checking at the mobile device would have conserved bandwidth and reduced delay because it would have allowed the mobile device to identify some unsuitable images before they were sent to the payee bank; however, the Petition does not actually include an explanation to this effect. Rather, it simply states that an ordinary artisan would have known that mobile telephone networks (such as that used by Garcia) “are bandwidth and resource-constrained, and that communications over such networks takes time.” Id.; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 115. However, all networks have bandwidth and resource constraints, and all communications take time, and neither the Petition nor Dr. Mowry explain why these considerations would have been relevant to an ordinary artisan implementing Garcia. Indeed, the Petition next asserts that “Byrne provides the requisite solution to this problem” (Pet. 42), but neither the Petition nor Dr. Mowry identify any problem. For example, Dr. Mowry does not testify that an ordinary artisan would have expected Garcia’s system to consume excessive bandwidth or incur for claim 2). In addition, Petitioner recognizes that the verification process is performed by the payee bank in Garcia, yet does not address the fact that its proposal would apparently shift a portion of the verification process to the mobile phone. See Pet. 40–44. Dr. Mowry’s trial testimony casts further doubt on Petitioner’s rationale for this claim. Dr. Mowry testifies that conserving bandwidth would “potentially” have been one of the goals of an ordinary artisan “depend[ing] on how precious their resource is.” Ex. 2020, 68:12–24. But Dr. Mowry “wouldn’t necessarily characterize [Garcia] as bandwidth intensive.” Id. at 76:13–23. In addition, he disagreed that “in the Garcia system, the motivation would have been to shift it to the client side for the verification,” noting simply that “[t]here are tradeoffs” associated with doing the verification processing on either the client or the server. Id. at 241:22– 242:13. Petitioner attempts to limit the impact of Dr. Mowry’s answers (Pet. Reply 16); however, the fact remains that Petitioner has the burden of proof, and it does not identify persuasive evidence to support its contention. Petitioner’s Reply asserts that these considerations were “particularly important in 2006, when 3G bandwidth was at a premium” (id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶ 49)), but neither Petitioner nor Dr. Mowry provide analysis or evidence to support this conclusory assertion. Moreover, the Petition also fails to address whether the proposed combination would have, in fact, conserved communications resources or reduced delays. In Petitioner’s proposed combination, Byrne’s thin client application would be downloaded to Garcia’s mobile phone at each use (which would require communication resources and incur latency), but the Petition fails to address whether the net result of the proposed combination 148:1 (Dr. Mowry agreeing that the impact of downloading the thin client is not discussed in his report). Moreover, Garcia touts the “speed” of its process, stating that its “immediate processing . . . allows the immediate availability in the user’s account” (Ex. 1003, 7:18–8:3), which indicates that an ordinary artisan would not have perceived a problematic delay in Garcia’s system. Petitioner’s attempt to shift the burden to Patent Owner to determine whether or not its purported benefits would be realized (see Pet. Reply 17) is unavailing. In its Reply, Petitioner cites testimony from Dr. Mowry (see Ex. 1029 ¶ 37), but it simply compares the size of a compressed image with the size of a “large” application. This evidence does not outweigh the other evidence above, and it was submitted too late to remedy the Petition. See supra § II.A.; see also Trial Practice Guide 73 (explaining that a petitioner “may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability”). Finally, on this record, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s” slip op. at 60

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “would have been motivated to implement Garcia’s application by downloading, onto the mobile device, a thin client application, as disclosed by Byrne. See Pet. 19–25. Byrne touts the benefits of downloading a thin client rather than storing an application on a user’s device (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 45– 46; see also id. ¶¶ 47–48), and Dr. Mowry testifies that an ordinary artisan would have understood downloading a thin client to be a well-known way of distributing software in the relevant time period and suited for mobile devices (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64–65, 70). In addition, Dr. Mowry testifies that a thin client improves security and ease of software maintenance. Id. ¶ 65 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 46–47); see also Ex. 1033, 140:11–141:2 (Dr. Creusere agreeing that thin clients “dramatically simplif[y]” software maintenance), 143:13–20 (agreeing that security is important for financial data); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–21 (evidence that the general background knowledge in the art identifies security as a concern for remote check deposit).14 In addition, we agree with Petitioner (see Pet. 21–22; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66, 72) that an ordinary artisan would have understood such an implementation to apply a known 14 Patent Owner’s argument that security and software maintenance would have instead weighed against the proposed combination (see, e.g., PO Sur-reply 9–10) is untimely because it was not advanced in the Response and is not fairly responsive to the Reply. See supra § II.A; Pet. Reply 15–16 (noting that the Response had not addressed these issues). Moreover, even if this argument had been properly raised, it would not be persuasive because Patent Owner does not identify persuasive evidence to support its position. See, e.g., Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence.”). (Garcia’s mobile phone) with predictable results. We are also persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Garcia’s application such that the application provides a user-interface and controls the image capture device, as disclosed by Byrne. See, e.g., Pet. 22–23. Garcia suggests that the application should perform these functions (see Ex. 1003, 5:1–6:10, 9:19– 10:18), and we credit Dr. Mowry’s testimony that an ordinary artisan would find this desirable (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65, 67). Moreover, the references lend themselves to the combination because Garcia and Byrne both describe remotely depositing a check via the Internet using software on a user’s device that opens an interactive session, and both perform substantially similar steps. See Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1003, 9:21–10:3, 10:10–18, 11:7–15; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 41, 48, 174–175, 177–178. Finally, Dr. Mowry testifies that the ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the combination, and he provides supporting analysis and evidence. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 68–72; see also Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 38–39. We credit this testimony from Dr. Mowry because it draws reasonable inferences and is supported by the cited evidence.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,769,598 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,769,598
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00098 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, and 4 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable because the driver was not shown configured to receive the rectifier’s forward voltages.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had experience in LED devices. For this reason, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the level of skill reflected in the ’149 patent and the prior art of record. However, if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, our Decision would not be affected.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Upon review of the entire record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Dr. Ducharme’s testimony that “the spacing of the chips in Zhang would not likely be so close as to create overheating issues” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 111) is unsupported by any disclosure of the actual spacing of Zhang’s chips. Consequently, his testimony that there would be no overheating concerns in Zhang due to the spacing of the chips is entitled to little, if any, weight. Dr. Ducharme further testifies that the components of Zhang’s driver “could easily increase the temperature of the LED 19 chips on the circuit board, which can cause LEDs to generate less illumination, burn out and otherwise adversely affect their performance.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 126. Dr. Ducharme further testifies that “[i]t is well-known that excessive operational temperatures can reduce the illumination provided by the LEDs, can decrease the operational lifetime of the LEDs, and if the temperature is sufficiently high, it can cause LED junction failure and a burnt-out LED.” Id. We agree with this testimony, which as discussed below, is consistent with Salam. Dr. Ducharme’s testimony concerning overheating issues caused by the driver components contradicts Patent Owner’s ’s contention that there would not be “an overheating issue with Zhang’s LED exit sign circuit in Figure 2.1.” PO Resp. 30. Regardless of whether Zhang’s LEDs in Figure 2.1 have a heat problem or not, Salam teaches the advantages of using a heat sink. Salam teaches that a heat sink will result in a higher efficiency of the LEDs and improved life. Ex. 1006, 16:38–43. The Federal Circuit, in DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal–and even common-sensical . . . the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses the knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.” Id. at 1368. Dr. Ducharme testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have an understanding of the generation of heat and using a heat sink to remove unwanted heat from electronics and LED lighting devices.” Ex. 1102, 23:18–24:3. Dr. Ducharme’s testimony is consistent with Petitioner’s contention that the combination of Zhang and Salam “would have been a straightforward combination of known components and technologies, according to known methods, to produce the predictable result of reducing/ mitigating heat effects in a circuit.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 106). Patent Owner next contends it would be extremely burdensome and costly to modify Zhang to add a heat sink layer because “each of the multiple chips mounted and epoxied to Zhang’s circuit board in the exit sign would have to be modified.” PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 112). Dr. Ducharme’s testimony repeats the Patent Owner Response verbatim and is entitled to little, if any, weight. Ex. 2002 ¶ 112. Nonetheless, this contention is unavailing because it is based on Patent Owner’s bodily incorporation of Zhang and Salam. Patent Owner next contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 27

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

    “Regardless of whether Zhang’s LEDs in Figure 2.1 have a heat problem or not, Salam teaches the advantages of using a heat sink. Salam teaches that a heat sink will result in a higher efficiency of the LEDs and improved life. Ex. 1006, 16:38–43. The Federal Circuit, in DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal–and even common-sensical . . . the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses the knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.” Id. at 1368. Dr. Ducharme testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have an understanding of the generation of heat and using a heat sink to remove unwanted heat from electronics and LED lighting devices.” Ex. 1102, 23:18–24:3. Dr. Ducharme’s testimony is consistent with Petitioner’s contention that the combination of Zhang and Salam “would have been a straightforward combination of known components and technologies, according to known methods, to produce the predictable result of reducing/ mitigating heat effects in a circuit.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 106).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,149 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,149
• Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00023 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4 are unpatentable over the stated § 103 combinations; Petitioner did not show claim 2 unpatentable because it did not explain how the LED array’s forward voltage is received by the driver.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of experience in the field of design and/or development of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and circuits in the context of lighting control systems.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34). Petitioner further contends that “[a]n increase in experience could compensate for less education.” Id. at 12. Patent Owner proposes the same level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. 6. We apply the parties’ undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the level of skill reflected in the ’149 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Dr. Lebby’s testimony over Dr. Ducharme for the following reasons. First, in Deese, power cable 28 is inserted into an opening in rubber housing 21. Ex. 1008, Fig. 2A. [R]ubber housing 21 forms a water-tight seal around the power cable 28.” Id. at 4:63–65. Dr. Ducharme does not explain why Hochstein’s protruding heat sink shell could not similarly be inserted through rubber housing 21 with a water-tight seal. Further, Dr. Lebby relies on the similarity between the structures of Deese and Hochstein. Hochstein uses gasket 45 and weather seal 48 to seal housing 10 with electrical lead 49 and heat sink shell 38 extending therethrough. Ex. 1010, 5: 39–40, 5:63:65, Fig. 8.” slip op. at 47

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

    “Our analysis starts with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “a driver, wherein the driver includes at least one transistor and at least one capacitor” and “the driver is configured to receive an AC voltage from a mains power source and provide a voltage and current to the at least one LED circuit.” Ex. 1001, 23:16–17, 26:22–24. Dr. Ducharme testifies that power is determined by multiplying voltage and current. Ex. 2008 ¶ 63. The language of claim 1, thus, supports Patent Owner’s construction which is also consistent with the dictionary definition offered by Petitioner which also defines “driver” as [a] program, circuit or device used to power or control other programs, circuits or devices.” Ex. 1007, 4 (emphasis added). The Specification provides “the driver providing an AC voltage and current to one or more LED circuits.” Ex. 1001, 3:65–67. Thus, the Specification also provides support for Patent Owner’s construction. For the foregoing reasons, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “driver” because it is consistent with the language of claim 1 and the description of driver in the Specification. We note that the adjective “LED” prior to circuits or devices in Patent Owner’s construction is not necessary because that it essentially repeats limitation 1.e.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We begin with the claim language itself which is “the package is a heat sinking reflective material.” Ex. 1001, 23:18–19 (emphasis added). In its analysis, Patent Owner parses “heat sinking reflective material” out of context by omitting the italicized language “the package is” preceding “heat sinking reflective material.” PO Resp. 29. The deposition testimony of Dr. Lebby and Dr. Ducharme’s declaration testimony cited by Patent Owner are also out of context. The Specification of the ’149 patent defines “package” as an integrated unit that “in certain applications may preferably include a heat sink, a reflective material, a lens for directing light, phosphor nano-crystals or light changing or enhancing substances.” Ex. 1001, 5:30–33. Because heat sink and reflective material are listed separately in the Specification, this disclosure suggests that, at least in certain embodiments, a package with a heat sink separate from a reflective material would fall within the scope of limitation 1.c. This is further confirmed by comparing the packages illustrated in Figures 25 and 26 of the ’149 patent which are reproduced above. Figure 25 is described as illustrating “heat sinking material 198 . . . integrated into the package 30.” Id. at 17:34–35. Figure 26 is described as illustrating reflector 202 “integrated into the package 30 for optimized light dispersion.” Id. at 17:47–49. As can be seen from a visual comparison of Figures 25 and 26, reflector 202 is separate from heat sinking material 198. Given the disclosure in the ’149 patent of a package with a heat sink” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,149 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,149
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 19, 2023 · IPR2021-01576 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 13–18 are not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations fail to teach or suggest multiple LED packages connected in series.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–42). Patent Owner argues that its definition is superior because Petitioner’s “and/or” qualifier “might be read as considering a person who has ‘related circuit design’ experience but no experience with ‘LED devices’ to be a POSITA.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner further views Petitioner’s “or a related field” phrasing as potentially including a person who has no experience with LED devices. Id. We agree with Patent Owner on both points. We agree with Patent Owner that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’979 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill but note that had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill, we would not have reached a different outcome here.” slip op. at 6

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

    “specification support its construction of “formed or mounted to” as encompassing indirect attachment to the substrate. Neither the plain claim language nor the specification requires the phosphor coating to be directly attached to the substrate. Limitation 1(c) recites, wherein the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating to produce a change in a color or a quality of light emitted from the LED chips, wherein the LED chips, the power connection leads, and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to a flexible substrate that is sufficiently flexible to be formed into a cylindrical shape[.] Ex. 1001, 22:7–12 (emphasis added). The claim is inartfully written, as it requires the LEDs to comprise a phosphor coating but then separately recites that the LED chips and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to the substrate. But Petitioner correctly explains that the plain meaning requires that “the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating” and that “the [same] phosphor coating” (included in the LED chips) is “formed or mounted to a flexible substrate.” Reply 2. In other words, the use of the term “the” before “phosphor coating” indicates reliance on the antecedent basis of “LED chips comprise a phosphor coating,” and thus the same coating of the LED chips is formed or mounted to the substrate. Logically, by including a phosphor coating with the LED chips, which are formed or mounted to the substrate, the coating of these chips is also indirectly formed or mounted to the substrate. Conversely, it would be illogical to conclude that the claim recites two phosphor coatings, one attached to the LED chips and another attached directly to the substrate, because the structure of the claim refers to a single phosphor coating of the LED chips. Even Patent Owner concedes that the claim encompasses the phosphor coating indirectly being mounted or attached to the substrate (in addition to being directly attached). PO Resp. 11 (“The ordinary English reading of the claim language does not encompass the phosphor coating only being indirectly attached to the substrate, instead, the language indicates that the coating is directly applied to the substrate.” (emphasis changed)), 13 (“the phosphor coating . . . is not merely attached to the substrate indirectly”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “After considering Patent Owner’s arguments, which we address below, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Wojnarowski and Martin discloses this limitation and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted by Petitioner. Briefly, we summarize our findings, and then we address the parties’ arguments in more detail. First, we agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Wojnarowski’s AC input voltage would have been converted to DC voltage in light of the bridge rectifier and capacitor disclosed by Wojnarowski. Pet. 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119– 20 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 7:59–62, Fig. 24); PO Resp. 35–36 (acknowledging Wojnarowski discloses converting an AC input to a DC voltage). Second, we further agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that excessive current due to too few LEDs would have harmed Wojnarowski’s LEDs, and too small a current due to too many LEDs would be insufficient to power Wojnarowski’s LEDs. Pet. 26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134; PO Resp. 48 (discussing, but not disputing, these assertions).13 Third, we agree that a POSITA would have recognized in view of Martin’s teachings and the knowledge of a skilled artisan that when configuring Wojnarowski’s device, the total forward voltage drop of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the DC voltage output 13 Petitioner explains the relationship between voltage and current for the LEDs as follows: “the total voltage drop of the circuit would dictate the current drawn by the LED circuitry, which would have been known to be inversely proportional to the voltage.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). of Wojnarowski’s circuit. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 132–38; Ex. 1008, Abstract (LED voltage “must be matched to the input source voltage”), ¶ 60 (“For AC or any other regularly varying input voltage, there is an additional requirement to direct drive voltage matching”)). For example, Martin teaches that “[t]he number of LEDs in the monolithic array may be selected to achieve a particular voltage drop across each device.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 22. Martin further explains, “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series,” and “[t]he number of LEDs is chosen such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED during the peak in the alternating current cycle is low enough so as not to damage the LEDs.” Id. The forward voltage drop across Martin’s 38 LEDs is about 171 V, which matches Martin’s AC input voltage peak of about 169.71 V. See id. (“At 120 RMS volts, the peak voltage will be about 180V [correction: 169.71 V],” and if the LEDs “can tolerate a maximum forward voltage of 4.5V, at least 38 LEDs connected in series are required.” (38 LEDs x 4.5 V = 171 V)); PO Resp. 41–42 (“While Martin references ‘about 180V,’ both parties agree that the correct value of the peak voltage Vp is 169.71 V.” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 127)). Although Martin’s LED forward voltage drop (171 V) differs slightly from the peak input voltage (169.71 V), Patent Owner conceded at the hearing that the claimed “matches” does not require an exact equivalence. Tr. 38:9–11 (“Patent Owner agrees . . . that matching has a meaning that goes beyond exact equivalence.”).14” slip op. at 22

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “35 U.S.C. § 311(b). PO Resp. 22–25. This statute provides that “[a] petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” § 311(b) (emphasis added). Patent Owner contends that Martin is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) because it is not a patent or printed publication and is only prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner argues that documents are “printed publications” as of the date they become available to the public, and Martin became public on its publication date of October 21, 2004, after the February 25, 2004 priority date of the ’979 patent. Id. at 23. Patent Owner raises a similar argument for the Soules-II reference in Ground 6. Id. at 25– 26. Petitioner responds that the AIA framework permits the use of § 102(e) prior art in IPR proceedings, unlike formerly available covered business method review (CBM) proceedings, which restricted challenges to § 102(a) prior art. Reply 29. We agree. The statute governing the formerlyavailable CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) more broadly permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The broader language in § 311(b) implies that unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to challenges solely under § 102(a) prior art. The parties cite to no Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit has applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in appeals from IPR proceedings. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication was available as prior art in an IPR). The Board has also long permitted challenges based on patent application publications under § 102(e). See, e.g., Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 14 at 27 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2013) (instituting trial over § 102(e) ground based on a patent application publication). We therefore find Patent Owner’s § 311(b) argument unpersuasive.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 10,652,979 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,652,979
• Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2023 · IPR2021-01343 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14–16, and 18–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Baldwin; claims 6, 8, 11, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been a person with a “bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in digital video signal processing or digital video streaming or had a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in digital video signal processing.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–39). Petitioner also states that a person of ordinary skill would have been able to, among other things, encode and decode digital video signals, packetize, multiplex, and demultiplex encoded digital video signals for transmission, and implement modulation and channel coding. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). Patent Owner states that a person of ordinary skill would have had “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a similar discipline, with one or two years of experience in this or a related field.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 20). Patent Owner states that its definition of a person of ordinary skill is similar to Petitioner’s definition and that any differences are not material. PO Resp. 13. We determine a person of ordinary skill would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience in digital video signal processing or digital video streaming, which is consistent with the parties’ arguments, the ’014 patent, and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 5

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

    “1. “video information” Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “video information” means “digital video data.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposed construction and contends “video information” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner also states that the construction of “video information” is immaterial to this proceeding. PO Resp. 13. We do not discern a meaningful dispute between the parties regarding the meaning of “video information,” and we do not expressly interpret the term. 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.”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Among other problems with these arguments, it is not clear how or where Petitioner relies on the proposed combination to satisfy any specific claim limitations. Petitioner argues each of Cooper and Baldwin teaches each limitation of each independent claim, and Petitioner presents its combination of references separate from its comparisons of Cooper and Baldwin to the claims, without clearly stating how the references are to be combined or how those combined teachings satisfy particular limitations. Because Petitioner fails to identify its proposed combination with sufficient clarity, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Cooper and Baldwin to yield the subject matter recited by the challenged claims. We also disagree with Petitioner’s argument that Realtime Data suggests that Petitioner does not need to show a motivation to combine. Reply 27–29 (citing Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1373–74). Unlike here, in Realtime Data, the secondary reference was cited for the “sole purpose” of confirming that an element was disclosed in the primary reference. Id. In this case, Petitioner proposes combining some teachings from each of Baldwin and Cooper. See Pet. 19–20; Reply 27. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not articulated an adequate rationale to combine the references to arrive at any particular challenged claim.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner contends, and we agree, that Cooper does not teach that its receiver identifies which of two streams is expected to result in a lower latency, as required by limitation [1d]. PO Resp. 36–52. Where Cooper describes receiving a multiplexed composite signal, Cooper teaches always identifying the normal mode packet stream for decoding when it is available, without regard to latency, and identifying the robust mode packet stream for decoding only when the normal mode packet stream is not available, such as when normal mode packets are lost. E.g., Ex. 1004, 7:8–8:28. In fact, it would be inconsistent with Cooper’s teachings for the receiver to select the robust mode packet stream when the normal mode packet stream is available: Cooper teaches that “[u]nder normal conditions, the error signal is not active on the error signal line E. In response, the selector 230 couples the normal mode packet stream to the multi-standard decoder 240, and the multi-standard decoder 240 begins to generate the content representative signal from the normal mode packets . . . .” Ex. 1004, 7:32–37 (emphasis added). Although Cooper also teaches that its receiver can decode the robust mode packet stream to avoid “undue delay” “at the beginning of any broadcast or channel change,” we find that Cooper does so only when the normal mode packet stream is not available. Ex. 1004, 17:23–45; see also Ex. 1004, 3:1–3. Specifically, Cooper states that “at the beginning of any broadcast or channel change,” there is a period of time (i.e., Tadv ) when the receiver’s delay device 220 is being filled. Ex. 1004, 17:23–26 (emphasis added). Cooper explains that waiting until delay device 220 is full would cause “undue delay when a receiver is switched on or a channel is changed.” Ex. 1004, 17:26–30. To address this delay, Cooper’s receiver decodes the robust mode packet stream, which “is immediately available,” so that a video signal can be presented until “the normal mode packet stream becomes available,” at which point the receiver switches to decoding the normal mode packet stream. Ex. 1004, 17:30–42. Consequently, we find that Cooper teaches that, at a channel change, its receiver receives (and decodes) the robust mode packet stream until it receives the normal mode packet stream. We disagree with Petitioner’s contrary argument that Cooper’s receiver receives both streams in this situation (see Reply 4–16), and, at a minimum, Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Cooper teaches or suggests this (see Ex. 2015, 82:22–85:13 (describing different scenarios but acknowledging that “Cooper doesn’t really illuminate either of these”)). Further, Cooper’s description of Figure 3 is consistent with our understanding of Cooper description of a channel change. Specifically, that portion of Cooper states: Time t0 may represent the time when the receiver is turned on, or when a user specifies a new content source to receive. During the time, Tadv, between t0 and t4, robust mode packets “a” to “j” are loaded into the delay device 220, and normal mode packets, designated “0” through “9” are received. At time t4, the normal mode packet “A” becomes available from the demultiplexer 210 and delayed robust mode packet “a” becomes available from the delay device 220. Under normal conditions, . . . the selector 230 couples the normal mode packet stream to the multi-standard decoder 240, and the multi-standard decoder 240 begins to generate the content representative signal from the normal mode packets, as described above. This is illustrated by the cross hatching 301 in the normal mode packets “A” through “G”. Ex. 1004, 7:24–39. Cooper includes this description in order to explain its typical operation as well as to illustrate the relative timing of the robust mode packet stream and the normal mode packet stream. See Ex. 1004, 7:24–25, 7:40–8:28. This passage teaches that normal mode packets designated with capital letters (e.g., “A”) are displayed after time t4 under normal conditions; however, it does not address which (if any) packets are displayed between time t0 and time t4. As a result, we understand this passage of Cooper to indicate that “0” to “9” are simply placeholders, which” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,646,014 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,646,014

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.