- Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01262 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“attempts to extrapolate Mahajan’s specific teachings and specific architecture into a general principle such that specific commands are converted to universal commands and then universal commands are converted to specific commands regardless of the location of the process within a distributed system. See Tr. 14:5–11. Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s extrapolation arguments are unsupported by Mahajan. We understand Petitioner argues that Mahajan’s “distributed computing environments” would have rendered it obvious to alter the location where command conversions occur. Pet. 41; Reply 10–11, 14. Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther
“Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,356,251 - Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00322 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations do not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed
“Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 25
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,356,251 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Sionyx, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00065 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–44 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favoring denial outweighed the Petition’s strong merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“stipulation would only eliminate the District Court’s consideration of Haddad204. Despite the stipulation, the District Court would still have to consider invalidity of every claim the Petition addresses and would still have to consider the Alie, Baggenstoss, and Park references. Cf. Stellar at 4 (“Petitioner’s invalidity arguments in the district court are more expansive and include combinations of the prior art asserted in these proceedings with unpublished system prior art, which Petitioner’s stipulation is not likely to moot.”). In other words, “Petitioner’s stipulation does not ensure that [this proceeding] would be a ‘true alternative’ to the district court proceeding.” Id. at 3–4. Because of the remaining overlap between the Petition and the District Court proceeding, Fintiv factor four weighs strongly in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundOther
“for back side illumination (BSI), which appears to teach or suggest a textured region with surface features “located on the light incident side of the semiconductor layer and configured to interact with incident [EMR].” Pet. 22–27 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 5, ¶¶ 53, 68, 96; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39–40, 88–95, 101–107). As Petitioner and its expert explain, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Figure 5 of Alie into a BSI device because BSI devices allow more incident light to reach the semiconductor layer, resulting in more light being absorbed, an increase in the quantum efficiency, and an improvement in the signal to noise ratio. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 68, 70; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39–40, 92, 95). Patent Owner argues that Alie does teach, suggest, or disclose “a textured region comprising a plurality of shallow trench isolation features.” Prelim. Resp. 9–11. But it appears Petitioner has at least shown Alie teaches or suggests this element. See discussion supra. Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner fails to present any proof that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Figure 5 of Alie into a BSI device. Id. at 11–15. But, in our view, Petitioner has provided an adequate motivation to modify Alie—so that more light will be absorbed, yielding an increase in the quantum efficiency and an improvement in the signal to noise” slip op. at 18
- Parallel petitionsNot reached
“17 Petitioner filed petitions for IPR2025-00064 and IPR2025-00065 at the same time. Both petitions address the ’682 patent but apply different art. Patent Owner also argues the second petition (IPR2025-00065) should be denied because one petition is sufficient. Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Notice Ranking Parallel Petitions, Paper 11. Because we deny institution based on Fintiv discretion, it is not necessary to reach Patent Owner’s multiple petition argument.” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,347,682 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Sionyx, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00064 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–44 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favoring denial outweighed the petition’s strong merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“arguments, and evidence presented in the parallel proceeding.” Fintiv at 12 (emphasis added). “[A] timely-filed Sotera stipulation . . . from a petitioner”—“that, if an IPR . . . is instituted, the petitioner will not pursue in district court . . . any ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR”—“is highly relevant, but will not be dispositive by itself. Instead, the Board will consider such a stipulation as part of its holistic analysis under Fintiv.” March 2025 Fintiv Guidance 2–3. Here, Petitioner’s invalidity contentions in the district court case cover” slip op. at 14
- Parallel petitionsNot reached
“18 Petitioner filed petitions for IPR2025-00064 and IPR2025-00065 at the same time. Both petitions address the ’682 patent but apply different art. Patent Owner also argues the second petition (IPR2025-00065) should be denied because one petition is sufficient. Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Notice Ranking Parallel Petitions, Paper 11. Because we deny institution based on Fintiv discretion, it is not necessary to reach Patent Owner’s multiple petition argument.” slip op. at 22
Discretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,347,682 - Highlevel, Inc. v. Etison LLC D/B/A ClickfunnelsInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00235 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of the IPR challenging claims 1–20 because the district court had already found the claims invalid under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“guidance on issues of first impression to the Board, guidance on Board rules and practices, and guidance on issues that may develop through analysis of recurring issues in many cases.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Revision 11).1 We see no reason to deviate from the informative decision here. The relevant facts in this case are indistinguishable from those at issue in Hulu. In that case, “Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that the claims challenged in [that] proceeding are invalid as reciting ineligible subject matter under § 101,” and “[t]he district court agreed with Petitioner and issued a decision” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“Because the District Court already found the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the parallel litigation, we deny institution of inter partes review. See id. III. ORDER It is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,361,047 - Highlevel, Inc v. Etison LLC D/B/A ClickfunnelsInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00234 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of the IPR challenging claims 1–20 because the district court had already found the claims invalid under § 101, making another review unnecessary.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“An informative decision provides Board norms on recurring issues, guidance on issues of first impression to the Board, guidance on Board rules and practices, and guidance on issues that may develop through analysis of recurring issues in many cases.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Revision 11).1 We see no reason to deviate from the informative decision here. The relevant facts in this case are indistinguishable from those at issue in Hulu. In that case, “Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that the claims challenged in [that] proceeding are invalid as reciting ineligible subject matter under § 101,” and “[t]he district court agreed with Petitioner and issued a decision granting Petitioner’s motion to dismiss and dismissing with prejudice Patent Owner’s infringement claim.” Hulu, IPR2024-01252, Paper 27 at 2. According to Hulu, “Because the patent claims already stand invalid, it is unnecessary to institute another proceeding to review them for patentability under other grounds.” Id. That is the case before us (Ex. 2007), and we reach the same conclusion: “the efficiency and integrity of the patent system is best served by denying institution.” Hulu, IPR2024-01252, Paper 27 at 3. slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,846,357 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Sionyx, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00161 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–18 under § 314(a), concluding that the Fintiv factors, viewed holistically, favored discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2019); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2019) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence of record, we exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“view of a parallel proceeding, we consider the following factors: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 7 Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2009–188316 A, published Aug. 20, 2009 (Ex. 1011). A certified translation, to which we cite, is provided (Ex. 1012, “Yamada”). 8 E. Fred Schubert, LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES, 2nd ed., 163–190, 2006 (Ex. 1013, “Schubert”). discretion, including the merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. In evaluating these factors, we “take[] a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6. We consider each of these factors below.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,721,714 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00016 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–3, 5–12, and 14–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Meyer anticipates claim 1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“During prosecution of the ’340 application, the Examiner specifically acknowledged that Jones 2005 “does not teach massively parallel sequencing as required by” the claim that issued as independent claim 1. Ex. 1017, 2421. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, the Examiner did not find Jones 2005 “discloses each limitation of claim 1 of the ’108 patent.” See Prelim. Resp. 39. In other words, the Examiner did not make “the same arguments with respect [to] Jones 2005 publication during the prosecution of the ’340 application.” Id. As a result, Petitioner’s anticipation challenge based on Meyer is not the same or substantially the same as the Examiner’s obviousness rejections based on Jones 2005.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“it “never discloses increasing the percentage of the sequence of interest as compared to any other component of the sample.” Prelim. Resp. 25. But contrary to this assertion, Meyer specifically discloses that a single copy of the broken chain T-primer was found in “16% of the total” raw reads, “slightly more than the expectation (~10%).” Ex. 1006, 9. If the expected 3' end fragments are 10% of the total reads, the combined 5' end fragments and internal fragments would be 90%. By employing the broken chain T-primer, Meyer increased the percentage of the 3' end fragments to 16% of the total reads, which means the combined 5' end fragments and internal fragments would be decreased to 84%. In other words, Meyer discloses increasing the percentage of the 3' end fragments, which contains the broken chain T-primer sequence, as compared to the 5' end fragments and internal fragments. Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why, under such circumstances, enrichment is not met. Patent Owner emphasizes that Meyer “is directed toward improving the error rate of sequencing reads.” Prelim. Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 124–130); see also id. at 28 (“The ‘homopolymer problem’ that Meyer was trying to fix is an issue caused by the 454 sequencer.”). We agree with Patent Owner on this issue. Patent Owner, however, has not explained sufficiently why Meyer’s method of reducing read artifacts by increasing the proportion of 3' end fragments in the total read does not meet the claimed enrichment.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We do not see a material difference in the parties’ proposed levels of education and work experience. Indeed, although Petitioner asserts that a POSA “would have a PhD or equivalent training,” it allows more work experience to compensate for less education. Pet. 23 (stating that a POSA could have “commensurately less education and more work experience”). We, nevertheless, adopt Patent Owner’s proposal in this aspect because it specifies the years of experience needed. Patent Owner also disputes Petitioner’s proposal that a POSA would have had experience with “implementing and designing library preparation methods 454 and Illumina, the leading NGS platforms in 2012.” Id. at 15 (quoting Pet. 23, emphasis added by Patent Owner removed). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his level of skill inappropriately requires the POSA to be an inventor of library preparation methods.” Id. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that “experience with implementing and designing library preparation methods 454 and Illumina” is above ordinary skill. We, however, find insufficient Patent Owner’s proposal that “the POSA would have had experience with DNA sequencing methods.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 65–68). The challenged claims relate to sequencing methods using a next-generation sequencing (“NGS”) platform. See Ex. 1002, 35:49–51 (claim 1 reciting “sequencing the amplified products comprising the enriched nucleic acid sequence of interest on a massively parallel sequencing platform”). As Patent Owner recognizes, [c]ompared to traditional, Pre-NGS sequencing methods, NGS sequencing utilized a new design that no longer relied upon disassembling and then piecing together a single original template DNA strand. Instead, NGS sequencing now allowed sequenced in the same reaction. With NGS, a user could perform massively parallel sequencing, allowing for elements of the genome to be sequenced in a fast, scalable manner. Prelim. Resp. 4. As such, we disagree with Patent Owner that a POSA only need to “have had experience with DNA sequencing methods” (id. at 15–16) because an artisan with experience with only pre-NGS sequencing methods would not qualify as a POSA. Instead, for purposes of this Decision, we find a POSA would have had a Ph.D. in the field of chemistry, molecular biology, or biochemistry. Alternatively, a POSA would have had a B.S. or M.S. degree with three to five years of experience working in any of those fields. Additionally, the POSA would have had experience with NGS sequencing methods and a working knowledge of how those methods functioned. This definition of a POSA is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’108 patent and prior art. We further note that neither aspect of the dispute over the skill level affects our decision to institute review.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes that we construe the terms “sequence of interest” and “barcode.” Pet. 24–25. According to Petitioner, the ’108 patent defines nucleic acid sequence” and “target sequence,” as “a polynucleotide sequence of interest, for which enrichment is desired.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1002, 21:3–5, 21:8–11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of this term.8 See Prelim. Resp. 17. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the term “sequence of interest.” Petitioner also proposes that we construe the term “barcode.” Pet. 25. Patent Owner points out that the term “barcode” only appears in dependent claim 8 and argues that we do not need to construe this term. Prelim. Resp. 17. For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Patent Owner on this issue. Neither party proposes any special meaning for the term “enrich.” We see no reason to do so either. To the extent express construction of “enrich” is necessary, we adopt the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. See Ex. 3001 (entry e defining “enrich” to mean “to process so as to add or increase the proportion of a desirable ingredient”). Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to construe any other claim term expressly.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,876,108 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00015 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–3 and 5–22 on all asserted grounds; Meyer anticipation of claim 1 met the reasonable-likelihood threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“the ’785 application. See generally Ex. 1016. Also, the Examiner did not issue any anticipation rejection during prosecution of the ’785 application. Id. Instead, the Examiner rejected claims as obvious over Jones 2005 in combination with other prior art. Id. at 190–96. The Examiner specifically acknowledged that Jones 2005 “does not teach massively parallel sequencing as required by” the claim that issued as independent claim 1. Id. at 192. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, Jones 2005 could not have “disclosed the same elements that Petitioner claims Meyer discloses.” See Prelim. Resp. 40. As a result, Petitioner’s anticipation challenge based on Meyer is not the same or substantially the same as the Examiner’s obviousness rejections based on Jones 2005.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On this record and for purposes of institution, we find Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Meyer discloses enrichment of the 3′ end fragments, which include the broken chain T primer sequence.” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We do not see a material difference in the parties’ proposed levels of education and work experience. Indeed, although Petitioner asserts that a POSA “would have a PhD or equivalent training,” it allows more work experience to compensate for less education. Pet. 25 (stating that a POSA could have “commensurately less education and more work experience”). We, nevertheless, adopt Patent Owner’s proposal in this aspect because it specifies the years of experience needed. Patent Owner also disputes Petitioner’s proposal that a POSA would have had experience with “implementing and designing library preparation methods 454 and Illumina, the leading NGS platforms in 2012.” Id. at 16 (quoting Pet. 25, emphasis added by Patent Owner removed). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his level of skill inappropriately requires the POSA to be an inventor of library preparation methods.” Id. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that “experience with implementing and designing library preparation methods 454 and Illumina” is above ordinary skill. We, however, find insufficient Patent Owner’s proposal that “the POSA would have had experience with DNA sequencing methods.” Id. (citing Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 65–68). As Patent Owner recognizes, the challenged claims relate to sequencing methods using a next-generation sequencing (“NGS”) platform. See id. at 13; see also Ex. 1001, 35:56–57 (claim 1 reciting “sequencing the enriched nucleic acid sequence of interest on a massively parallel sequencing platform”). Also, as Patent Owner recognizes, [c]ompared to traditional, Pre-NGS sequencing methods, NGS sequencing utilized a new design that no longer relied upon disassembling and then piecing together a single original template DNA strand. Instead, NGS sequencing now allowed for hundreds of thousands of original template strands to be sequenced in the same reaction. With NGS, a user could perform massively parallel sequencing, allowing for elements of the genome to be sequenced in a fast, scalable manner. Prelim. Resp. 4. As such, we disagree with Patent Owner that a POSA only need to “have had experience with DNA sequencing methods” (id. at 16) because an artisan with experience with only pre-NGS sequencing methods would not qualify as a POSA. Instead, for purposes of this Decision, we find a POSA would have” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that we construe the terms “sequence of interest” and “barcode.” Pet. 26–27. According to Petitioner, the ’012 patent defines “sequence of interest,” which is used interchangeably with terms “target nucleic acid sequence” and “target sequence,” as “a polynucleotide sequence of interest, for which enrichment is desired.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:1–3, 21:6–9). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of this term.8 See Prelim. Resp. 17. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the term “sequence of interest.”” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,036,012 - PTAB · Apr 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01506 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–16 on all asserted challenges, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kivioja anticipates at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“framework set forth under Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 7 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics” or “AB”). Under the first prong of that framework, we must determine whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. If so, we turn to the second prong which focuses on whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Id. at 8. a. Advanced Bionics Prong One: whether “the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office” In evaluating whether the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, the Board has identified several non-exclusive factors for consideration. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (Paper 8) (precedential § III.C.5, first para.) (“the Becton Dickinson factors”). Specifically, we must weigh the following non-exclusive factors: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of prior art or arguments. Becton Dickinson, at 17–18. Thus, the Becton Dickinson factors are framed as comparing the art or arguments in a petition against what was before an examiner during prosecution.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” 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)). Although Petitioner provides us with constructions for “appended,” “identifier site” and “indexing site,” the meaning of these terms are not in controversy at this stage of the proceeding and their constructions will not aid in our analysis. We acknowledge, the ’241 patent. See Ex. 1005, 4:37–40, 4:45, 4:51–53.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“2. “identifying sequence reads with identical identifier and target sequences as duplicates” The parties do not request construction of the limitation, “identifying sequence reads with identical identifier and target sequences as duplicates.” Nonetheless, we invite the parties to address the construction of this limitation after institution. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims are construed only to the extent necessary to resolve a dispute). Specifically, the parties may wish to address whether the “same identifier and nucleic acid fragment” means that the sequences actually are identical. The ’241 patent states: “A duplicate sequencing read can be a sequencing read with the same identifier site and target sequence as another sequencing read in the population of sequencing reads.” Ex. 1003, 4:10–13. Yet, the claim does not use the exact wording used in the Specification.4 The ’241 patent goes on to disclose “apparent duplicates” and “true” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We do not see a material difference in the parties’ proposed levels of education and work experience. Indeed, although Petitioner asserts that a POSA “would have a PhD or equivalent training,” it allows more work experience to compensate for less education. Pet. 20 (stating that a POSA could have “commensurately less education and more work experience”). We, nevertheless, adopt Patent Owner’s proposal in this aspect because it specifies the years of experience needed. Patent Owner further disputes Petitioner’s proposal that a POSA would have had experience with “implementing and designing library preparation methods for Illumina, the leading NGS platforms in 2013.” Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (quoting Pet. 20, emphasis added by Patent Owner removed). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his level of skill inappropriately requires the POSA to be an inventor of library preparation methods.” Id. at 8. We agree with Patent Owner that “experience with implementing and designing library preparation methods for Illumina” is above ordinary skill. have had experience with DNA sequencing methods and a working knowledge of how these sequencing methods functioned.” Id. As Patent Owner recognizes, the challenged claims relate to obtaining amplicons with an amplified nucleic acid fragment and an appended adaptor and then sequencing the amplicon to generate sequence reads. See Ex. 1005, 25:33– 43. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art at the critical time would have had a Ph.D. in the field of chemistry, molecular biology, or biochemistry. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a B.S. or M.S. degree with three to five years of experience working in any of those fields. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had experience with NGS sequencing methods and a working knowledge of how those methods functioned. This definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’241 patent and prior art. We further note that neither aspect of the dispute over the skill level affects our decision to institute review.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,725,241
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.