- Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 26, 2024 · IPR2023-00424 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 10, 12–17, and 19 as anticipated or obvious over Acres, and claims 9 and 18 as obvious over Acres and Pyles.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner indicates that “[f]or purposes of this Response, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 14. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal of the level of ordinary skill in the art as reasonable and consistent with the prior 9 Person of ordinary skill in the art. art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Considering the discussion above, we conclude that the meaning of “data” previously offered by Patent Owner as “factual information, from 10 [JUDGE]: Counsel, let me borrow my colleague’s question. Maybe I’m belaboring this, but in your view, information that is sensed or collected or factual information that is sensed or collected, that’s effectively the same thing; and this case does not distinguish between factual information in that context and just information? [COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWER]: Yes. That’s correct, Your Honor. which decisions and subsequent actions can be made” finds support in the record, and also is in accord with the meaning of “data” as “information” that is offered by Petitioner (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 2).11 Accordingly, we adopt the meaning of “data” that Patent Owner offered in its Preliminary Response as “factual information, from which decisions and subsequent actions can be made.” See Prelim Resp. 18. In doing so, we reiterate and restate our view from the Institution Decision that the record does not lend itself to a conclusion that such a meaning of “data” is so restrictive as to convey that any instructions, commands, or signals are “entirely devoid of content recognized as ‘factual information’ so as to be beyond the contours of what a skilled artisan would regard as ‘data.’” See Inst. Dec. 9.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Thus, Acres discloses that, based upon an exerciser’s heart rate, Bug 601 operates to send or transmit commands to treadmill 150 to control operational parameters of the treadmill, such as its speed and incline. Petitioner contends that “Acres’s Bug and its associated sensors are together a sensor device.” See, e.g., Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner does not dispute that contention. Patent Owner’s dispute arises from its position that Acres’s transmitted commands do not amount to the claimed “first set of data.” See PO Resp. 21–25; PO Sur-reply 10–14. That dispute is premised on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction, which requires that the claimed “data” be only information that is sensed or collected in some other specific way by a sensor. As discussed above in our Claim Construction section (§ II.C.1), however, we do not agree that the record substantiates such a narrow meaning for the term “data.” It is difficult to conclude that a command that is generated based on a user’s heart rate that operates to control the functionality of a piece of workout equipment is not readily viewed as “factual information, from which decisions or subsequent actions can be made,” which, as discussed above, is a meaning of “data” that reasonably emerges to one of ordinary skill in the art based on record evidence.12 In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner also briefly states that Acres does not show that “decisions or subsequent actions can be made” from “data.” PO Sur-reply 12–13. It is apparent, however, that Patent Owner does not dispute that decisions or subsequent actions may be made based on the commands transmitted from Acres’s Bug. Id. at 13 (“lululemon has only established that Acres teaches that decisions or subsequent actions are made based on commands transmitted from the Bug.”). Indeed, no dispute is credible because, as noted above, Acres clearly describes the commands the Bug sends operate to control operation of workout equipment, such as increasing its speed. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 89. Rather, Patent Owner simply parallels its prior arguments that a deficiency arises because, in Patent 12 We again note that “factual information, from which decisions or subsequent actions can be made” was the meaning of “data” advocated by Patent Owner as a part of its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 18. Owner’s view, the commands do not encompass “data.” As discussed above, we do not agree with that contention. Patent Owner does not contend that any other feature of independent” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“agree with Patent Owner (see, e.g., PO Resp. 27–28; PO Sur-reply 14–17), but rather agree with Petitioner (see, e.g., Pet. 29–31; Pet. Reply 19–21). The record does not demonstrate that there is some type of fundamental dichotomy between local data storage of activity at a piece of workout equipment and remote, central data storage of such activity that prohibits or precludes combining teachings directed to each approach. Rather, the record readily conveys that each type of data storage approach was recognized as known and viable. Even if there may have been some disadvantages with one or both approaches, the obviousness inquiry does not somehow mandate that a combination of teachings must result in something that is free of imperfection. As suggested by Petitioner, a skilled artisan readily would have recognized some benefits accrue to the local data storage approach advocated by Pyles. Even if there may have been some disadvantages to that approach, that does not nullify appreciation of the benefits that may offset such disadvantages. See, e.g., Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another”). Indeed, as argued by Petitioner, and as attested to by Dr. Houh, the record reasonably establishes that a skilled artisan would have evaluated potential benefits and detriments as part of various data storage approaches in the area of workout equipment in assessing obviousness. See, e.g., Pet. 29–31; Pet. Reply 19–21; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 68–73; Ex. 1015 ¶ 31. The obviousness inquiry demands as much. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. McLean, postulates, without record citation, that some detriments may possibly arise in implementing data storage at an exercise machine, as in Pyles, in lieu of central site storage as in Acres. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 64–68. Yet, even if such less-than-desirable characteristics may result, neither Dr. McLean nor Patent Owner offers any cogent explanation as to why recognition of those characteristics undermines a determination of obviousness. In particular, Dr. McLean does not dispute that local storage would have the benefits discussed by Dr. Houh (a simplified, less expensive structure with a reduced number of components, which do not need to be connected to the internet), albeit along with the disadvantages discussed by Dr. McLean. Indeed, Dr. McLean and Patent Owner do not explain why a skilled artisan would not reasonably have evaluated any detriments alongside the potential benefits as a part of the obviousness inquiry. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). That test does not objectively fail if a skilled artisan would have recognized some disadvantages in combining the prior art teachings. See, e.g., Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”).” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,923,225 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,923,225 - Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00348 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5–7, and 12 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 5–7 are anticipated by Lofi, and claims 1, 5–7, and 12 are obvious over Maeueler and Kitagawa.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’930 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Fischer (Ex. 1005 ¶ 44).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “providing first instructions to a user to perform a first athletic movement.” Ex. 1001, 26:17–18. The claim language itself suggests that “a first athletic movement” is simply the physical exercises, drills, or activities the user is instructed to perform via the first instructions. See Pet. Reply 4 (Petitioner arguing that the “instructions” recited in claim 1 “define the first and second athletic movements”). So, if the “first instructions” (notably plural) instructed a user to run one mile, then running one mile would be the “first athletic movement”; and likewise, if the “first instructions” instructed a user to perform 10 squats, perform 10 push-ups, and run one mile, then performing the 10 squats, performing 10 push-ups, and running one mile would be the “first athletic movement.” Contrary to Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we find no suggestion in claim 1 that “a first athletic movement” should be limited to a single “athletic movement” or “a single type of exercise or athletic activity.” Indeed, a single “type of exercise” or single “athletic activity” both appear to be proverbial “noses of wax,” as Patent Owner provides no explanation for how the skilled artisan would definitively distinguish one type of exercise or athletic activity from another (e.g., “weightlifting” could be considered an athletic activity or a “type” of exercise, yet it comprises countless weighted physical motions and sequences; similarly, “swimming” could be considered an athletic activity or a “type” of exercise, yet it too comprises many physical forms or techniques invoking many different physical motions and sequences (such as breaststroke, backstroke, butterfly, and sidestroke). We note that claim 6, which depends directly from independent claim 1, recites: “[W]herein the first instructions and the second instructions include a plurality of drills configured to test a plurality of fitness attributes of the user and a plurality of athleticism attributes of the user.” Ex. 1001, 26:57–60 (emphases added). Although less than artfully worded, we find that dependent claim 6 plainly requires that the first (and second) instructions provided to the user in claim 1 instruct the user on performing “a plurality of drills” (i.e., more than a single drill), which further supports our interpretation of “a first athletic movement.” See Pet. Reply 4. Patent Owner argues, inter alia, claim 6 specifies that “the first instructions and second instructions must be selected from a specific ‘plurality of drills’— rather than from some other source (e.g., an athletic competition).” PO Surreply 5–6 (emphasis added); see id. at 6–7 (Patent Owner arguing “claim 6 simply requires the first and second instructions to identify a first and second ‘athletic movement’ that are selected from a certain catalog of drills” (emphasis added)). We find Patent Owner’s attempt to contort “includes” to mean “selected from” a certain grouping unavailing, because “including” A, B, and C is simply not the same as “select[ing] [one] from” A, B, and C.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Both parties argue that the terms “first instructions” and “first activity data” should have their ordinary and customary meanings or otherwise do not require construction to resolve the controversy between the parties. PO Resp. 21–22; Pet. Reply 8–10. We agree.” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Claims: We turn first to the claim language itself. We are mindful of Judge Rich’s guidance from over thirty years ago: in all aspects of claim construction, “the name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles Sutherland Rich, Extent of Protection and Interpretation of Claims–American Perspectives, 21 Int’l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “providing first instructions to a user to perform a first athletic movement.” Ex. 1001, 26:17–18. The claim language itself suggests that “a first athletic movement” is simply the physical exercises, drills, or activities the user is instructed to perform via the first instructions. See Pet. Reply 4 (Petitioner arguing that the “instructions” recited in claim 1 “define the first and second athletic movements”). So, if the “first instructions” (notably plural) instructed a user to run one mile, then running one mile would be the “first athletic movement”; and likewise, if the “first instructions” instructed a user to perform 10 squats, perform 10 push-ups, and run one mile, then performing the 10 squats, performing 10 push-ups, and running one mile would be the “first athletic movement.” Contrary to Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we find no suggestion in claim 1 that “a first athletic movement” should be limited to a single “athletic movement” or “a single type of exercise or athletic activity.” Indeed, a single “type of exercise” or single “athletic activity” both appear to be proverbial “noses of wax,” as Patent Owner provides no explanation for how the skilled artisan would definitively distinguish one type of exercise or athletic activity from another (e.g., “weightlifting” could be considered an athletic activity or a “type” of exercise, yet it comprises countless weighted physical motions and” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 10,188,930 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,188,930 - Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00349 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 11, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Sirmans and Kobayashi; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“period,” “should be given [its] ordinary and customary meaning,” which according to Patent Owner, is “receiving an activity time period from a user during a goal setting operation.” PO Resp. 11–12 (emphasis added); see id. at 11–13; PO Sur-reply 2–8. Petitioner proposes that limitation 1[b] also should be given its ordinary and customary meaning, but contends the meaning is simply what it recites, “receiving an activity time period,” which does not require the “activity time period” to be received “from a user during a goal setting operation.” Pet. Reply 2–6; Pet. 18. We agree with Petitioner, and determine that limitation 1[b] does not require the “activity time period” to be received “from a user during a goal setting operation,” as discussed below.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in engineering, computer science, industrial design, biomechanics, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of experience researching, developing, designing, and/or testing fitness or physiological sensors, wearable devices, physiological or biomechanical devices, remotely controlled systems or interfaces, network-based applications and/or equipment, or the equivalent experience or education. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 42). Patent Owner “does not dispute [Petitioner’s] proposed level of skill in the art” in this case. PO Resp. 11.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“period,” “should be given [its] ordinary and customary meaning,” which according to Patent Owner, is “receiving an activity time period from a user during a goal setting operation.” PO Resp. 11–12 (emphasis added); see id. at 11–13; PO Sur-reply 2–8. Petitioner proposes that limitation 1[b] also should be given its ordinary and customary meaning, but contends the meaning is simply what it recites, “receiving an activity time period,” which does not require the “activity time period” to be received “from a user during a goal setting operation.” Pet. Reply 2–6; Pet. 18. We agree with Petitioner, and determine that limitation 1[b] does not require the “activity time period” to be received “from a user during a goal setting operation,” as discussed below.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner argues the skilled artisan would have had “a strong motivation” to combine the teachings of Sirmans and Kobayashi, which are “in the same field of personal fitness monitoring,” because doing so would have “further incentivize[d] regular exercise,” and that the skilled artisan would have done so “with a high likelihood of success.” Pet. 62–63 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 124–128). Petitioner argues “it would [have been] a simple modification to include Kobayashi’s recognition of consecutive activity time periods into Sirmans’ protocol criteria,” and “[i]n view of the combined teachings of Sirmans and Kobayashi, it would [have been] easy to implement determining whether the received athletic activity data exceeds the first activity goal for a predetermined number of consecutive activity time periods.” Pet. 62–63 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 124–128). In sum, Petitioner contends Sirmans teaches determining whether received athletic activity data exceeds a first activity goal for a predetermined number of activity time periods, and turns to Kobayashi for teaching recognizing and rewarding users for achieving goals for consecutive activity time periods. See Pet. 60–63. Based on the foregoing evidence and the reasons stated in the Petition at pages 60–63, we find Petitioner sufficiently establishes that the combination of Sirmans and Kobayashi teaches or fairly suggests limitation 1[d]. Except as discussed above concerning limitation 1[b] (activity time period), Patent Owner does not contest that this limitation is present in the combination. See generally PO Resp.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,259,615 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,259,615 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00095 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 20–22, 24, 29, and 37 obvious over either asserted combination of references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 20–22, 24, 29, and 37 of the ’533 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies and human interface design” and a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring technologies and human interface design. Pet. 7; Ex. 1003 ¶ 45. Petitioner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “could have also had a Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art and does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“For support that AHIT would have been understood to display the required “first user interface,” Petitioner only points us to its testimonial evidence; however, the cited testimony is substantively the same as the argument presented in the Petition with no additional citations to the record that indicate that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood AHIT to disclose the recited “first user interface.” Compare Pet. 20–21, with Ex. 1003 ¶ 199 (citing nothing in the record). Moreover, in its argument regarding the recited “second user interface,” Petitioner contends that “the display of a preset icon via the screen is a different interface (e.g., a first user interface) from the display of progress of collecting the ECG data via the screen (e.g., a second user interface).” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 222). Petitioner clearly equates AHIT’s display with a preset icon to the “first user interface,” which is different from its previous argument that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that a screen, and certainly a screen with the disclosed prompt of AHIT’s wearable device, would have displayed a first user interface indicating that the wearable device was ready to detect biometric information” and “that the first user interface was displayed to inform the user, prior to the collection of the ECG data, that the device was ready to collect ECG data because the user would need to be informed that the trigger action could be effectively received by the device.” Compare id. at 20–21, with id. at 25–26. The cited testimonial evidence also opines that “the person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the AHIT user interface would transition from a preset icon (e.g., a first user interface) to a display of ¶ 222. Petitioner’s declarant also equates AHIT’s display of a preset icon with the first user interface, which contradicts AHIT’s disclosure that “when collecting ECG data, the wearable device may display a preset icon via the screen.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 39. We, therefore, give little weight to the opinion of Petitioner’s declarant regarding the “first user interface” because it does not make clear what teaches, suggests, or would have been understood to disclose the “first user interface” and conflicts with what AHIT describes. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶ 199, with id. ¶ 222 and Ex. 1006 ¶ 39.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner, however, provides insufficient argument and evidence that resuming initialization or resetting the data processing device would revert to a first user interface after the first input was no longer detected for a second period of time or replace the information displayed on the user interface. Pet. 16, 34. As implicitly acknowledged by Petitioner, the cited portions of Hooper do not describe replacing displayed information. See Pet. 16, 34; Ex. 1007, 2:22–3:13, 6:15–25, Fig. 2. The cited testimonial evidence also does not cite to any part of the record that would tend to support the opinion that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that resuming initialization or resetting the data processing device would replace the display” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 181), a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that resuming display” (id. ¶ 249), and “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to revert to the first user interface after the first input was no longer detected for a second period of time” (id. ¶ 250). Petitioner’s declarant also does not explain why “a change in the display would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of AHIT’s explicit goal of saving wearable device resources.” Id. ¶ 248. Petitioner does not argue adequately or cite sufficient evidence that changing from one user interface to another would have saved wearable device resources. Pet. 34; Ex. 1003 ¶ 248. As discussed previously, Petitioner does not provide sufficient argument and evidence that its proposed combination would have had “a first user interface indicating that the first electronic device is ready to detect biometric information.” Even if Petitioner did adequately show that its proposed combination would have had the required first user interface, Petitioner fails to show with sufficient argument and evidence that its proposed combination would have “replac[ed] display of the second user interface with the first user interface,” for the above-discussed reasons.” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,568,533 - PTAB · May 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00080 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 and all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be obvious over Schneider.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of Inter Partes Review Because we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Schneider, we institute inter partes review of all claims and all challenges raised in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2020) (35 U.S.C. § 314 “simply requires [the Director] to decide whether the petitioner is likely to succeed on ‘at least 1’ claim. Once that single claim threshold is satisfied, it doesn’t matter whether the petitioner is likely to prevail on any additional claims; the Director need not even consider any other claim before instituting review.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution in deference to the two co-pending district court infringement litigations. See Pet. 4. In support, each Petitioner entity (Dropbox, Inc. and Microsoft Corporation) “stipulates that, if the Board institutes IPR, it will not pursue in its parallel district court proceeding the grounds raised, or which reasonably could have been raised, in” the Petition. Id. Petitioner asserts this stipulation means “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation.” Id. (quoting USPTO Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022)7 at 3, 7). Patent Owner does not address discretionary denial in its Preliminary Response. We do not exercise the authority to discretionarily deny institution.” slip op. at 36
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“held a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one or more years of experience in the design and development of file management, restoration, and archival systems.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 29–32). Petitioner further asserts “[m]ore education, e.g., a Master’s or PhD could compensate for a lack of work experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. See Prelim. Resp. 9 (“Patent Owner does not offer a competing definition at this time, because even under Petitioner’s proposed definition the Petition fails to present a reasonable likelihood of success.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposed definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’850 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes any claim terms for construction. Petitioner states it “appl[ies] the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner states it “does not believe any claim constructions are necessary based on the arguments presented by Patent Owner at this time.” Prelim. Resp. 26. We conclude, at this stage, that it is not necessary to address the construction of any claim terms or phrases. 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
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,585,850 - PTAB · May 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00079 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–6, 8–20, and 23–31 on both asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have reviewed the preliminary record, and we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions at least for claim 1. First, we summarize the disclosures of Kenley and Long, then we consider the parties’ opposing contentions concerning the challenged claims.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundOther
“We conclude Petitioner has explained with supporting evidence how the combination of Kenley and Long would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success and without hindsight, sufficiently to justify institution of review. In particular, on this record, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kenley’s process of backing up files, by triggering the creation of an archive file whenever a file is modified using three successive backup memories per the teachings of Long. See Pet. 13, 18. Dr. Maier testifies in support that this would have been done to improve the reliability of Kenley’s file archiving process, by avoiding the potential loss of data created in between Kenley’s archiving of files at predetermined time intervals. See Pet. 13–15, 18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–50, 52–53, 58. Patent Owner does not materially dispute the increased reliability benefits achieved by modifying Kenley’s file-based backup process in this fashion, in the present preliminary record. Instead, Patent Owner pre-supposes that Petitioner’s case for obviousness is premised on the bodily incorporation of Long’s sector-based archiving process into Kenley’s file-based archiving process. However, that is not what Petitioner proposes, as summarized in detail above. Moreover, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference (such as Long) may be bodily incorporated into the structure or process of the other reference (such as Kenley), but rather is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Further, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21. On the present record, we discern no reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been deterred from modifying Kenley’s file archiving process to be triggered whenever a file is modified and to use three successive backup memories per the teachings of Long, or would not have expected success in doing so.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Even considering the merits of Patent Owner’s reliance on Schneider as teaching away as being pertinent to Petitioner’s Ground One, we find on the present record that Schneider discusses various differences between file-based backup processes and sector-based backup processes, including some pros and cons of each approach. See Ex. 1020, 2:23–3:2, 5:8–16, 6:1– 7, 6:18–22, 14:4–9, 24:20–27; Prelim. Resp. 22–23. For example, a sector-based backup is faster and requires less administration than a file-based backup (see Ex. 1020, 2:22–28, 6:18–22, 24:20–22), whereas a file-based backup can be restored more efficiently than a sector-based backup (see id. at 2:28–3:2). We conclude on the present record that Schneider does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage file-based backup processes, as is required for a teaching away. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, Schneider expressly recognizes that its methods may be used in connection with file-based backup processes. See Ex. 1020, 11:4–5 (“[T]he present invention can also be implemented as part of the operating system.”), 24:1–19 (“The present invention can be implemented either at the sector (disk) level or as part of an operating system’s filing system at the file level.”).” slip op. at 27
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We conclude Petitioner’s stipulation is commensurate in scope with a Sotera stipulation. See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12, at 13–14, 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential); Guidance Memo, at 3. The Guidance Memo states: Consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB. Guidance Memo, 3, 7–8. For this reason, we do not deny institution in view of the two co-pending district court infringement litigations.” slip op. at 41
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,218,348 - PTAB · May 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00078 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–6 and 8–11 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1 over Kenley and Long.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The Petition, to justify institution of review, must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)), we institute an inter partes review to determine whether Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable, considering all grounds in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We conclude Petitioner has explained with supporting evidence how the combination of Kenley and Long would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success and without hindsight, sufficiently to justify institution of review. In particular, on this record, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kenley’s process of backing up files, by triggering the creation of an archive file whenever a file is modified using three successive backup memories per the teachings of Long. See Pet. 19, 24–25. Dr. Maier testifies in support that this would have been done to improve the reliability of Kenley’s file archiving process, by avoiding the potential loss of data created in between Kenley’s archiving of files at predetermined time intervals. See Pet. 19–21, 24–25; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–50, 52–53, 58. Patent Owner does not materially dispute the increased reliability benefits achieved by modifying Kenley’s file-based backup process in this fashion, in the present preliminary record. Instead, Patent Owner pre-supposes that Petitioner’s case for obviousness is premised on the bodily incorporation of Long’s sector-based archiving process into Kenley’s file-based archiving process. However, that is not what Petitioner proposes, as summarized in detail above. Moreover, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference (such as Long) may be bodily incorporated into the structure or process of the other reference (such as Kenley), but rather is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Further, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21. On the present record, we discern no reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been deterred from modifying Kenley’s file archiving process to be triggered whenever a file is modified and to use three successive backup memories per the teachings of Long, or would not have expected success in doing so.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Even considering the merits of Patent Owner’s reliance on Schneider as teaching away as being pertinent to Petitioner’s Ground One, we find on the present record that Schneider discusses various differences between file-based backup processes and sector-based backup processes, including some pros and cons of each approach. See Ex. 1020, 2:23–3:2, 5:8–16, 6:1– 7, 6:18–22, 14:4–9, 24:20–27; Prelim. Resp. 22–24. For example, a sector-based backup is faster and requires less administration than a file-based backup (see Ex. 1020, 2:22–28, 6:18–22, 24:20–22), whereas a file-based backup can be restored more efficiently than a sector-based backup (see id. at 2:28–3:2). We conclude on the present record that Schneider does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage file-based backup processes, as is required for a teaching away. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, Schneider expressly recognizes that its methods may be used in connection with file-based backup processes. See Ex. 1020, 11:4–5 (“[T]he present invention can also be implemented as part of the operating system.”), 24:1–19 (“The present invention can be implemented either at the sector (disk) level or as part of an operating system’s filing system at the file level.”).” slip op. at 27
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We conclude Petitioner’s stipulation is commensurate in scope with a Sotera stipulation. See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12, at 13–14, 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential); Guidance Memo, at 3. The Guidance Memo states: Consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB. Guidance Memo, 3, 7–8. For this reason, we do not deny institution in view of the two co-pending district court infringement litigations.” slip op. at 41
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,473,478 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2023-01434 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’898 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention would have been a person with a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies and human interface design. That person would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring technologies and human interface design (Ex. 1003, ¶45). Alternatively, that person could have also had a Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline (Ex. 1003, ¶45). More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa (Ex. 1003, ¶45). Pet. 5–6. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The general rule is that “the indefinite article ‘a’ means ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 64 F.4th 1311 (2023); see also Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“An exception to the general rule that ‘a’ . . . means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.”). And, the use of “the” (as in “the detailed view”) indicates that the recited part of the claim is a reference back to the corresponding part of a previous recitation (i.e., “a detailed view”). Finjan LLC v. SonicWall, Inc., 84 F.4th 963, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Similar to this court’s holding that ‘said’ indicates part of a claim limitation refers to the corresponding part of a previously claimed limitation, . . . , the use of ‘the’ also indicates the claimed term refers to an antecedent term.”). However, whether “a detailed view” means “one or more detailed views” is a separate issue from whether the claims require the same detailed view to have both of the recited components. See Finjan, 84 F.4th at 974 (“[T]hat is a separate issue from whether the claims require the same component to perform multiple functions or satisfy multiple limitations of a claim.”). The plain language of “a detailed view” followed by the recitation of “the detailed view” comprising two components suggests that the “detailed view” must be tied to both of those components. See id. (“In [Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Nokia Sols. & Networks Oy, 15 F.4th 1136, 1143–44 (Fed. Cir. 2021)], we explained that ‘[a]s a matter of plain language, reciting ‘a computer’ (or a ‘first computer’) that performs a function, and then further reciting that ‘the computer’ (or ‘said first computer’) performs multiple additional functions, suggests that such ‘computer’ must be tied to all those functions.’ . . . This same rationale is relevant in analyzing the claims here.”); see also id. (The court agreeing with SonicWall’s argument “that even if the reference to ‘a computer’ may mean ‘one or more computers,’ the subsequent references to ‘the computer’ can only be satisfied by the same ‘one or more computers’ that satisfied the first limitation.”); Salazar, 64 F.4th at 1317 (“We agree with the district court that while the claim term ‘a microprocessor’ does not require there be only one microprocessor, the subsequent limitations referring back to ‘said microprocessor’ require that at least one microprocessor be capable of performing each of the claimed functions.”). We determine that, even if plural detailed views are allowed, the claim requires a single one of those views to have both a graph representation and a selectable data sharing option.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. For the reasons discussed above, we construe independent claims 1 and 23 as requiring the “detailed view” to have both a graph representation and a selectable data sharing option. See supra Section II.C. Petitioner does not identify adequately any disclosure in Molettiere of displaying a single view having both components. Thus, Petitioner has not shown adequately that Molettiere is anticipatory. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not articulate adequately any obviousness contentions regarding how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relied-on figures of Molettiere to arrive at the recited detailed view having both components. See Prelim. Resp. 9–10; Pet. 10–14. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to independent claim 1 and independent claim 23 as anticipated by or obvious over Molettiere. For the same reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to dependent claims 2– 11, 18, 20–22, 25–34, 41, and 43–45 as anticipated by or obvious over Molettiere. E. The Alleged Unpatentability of Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 16, 18, 23, 26, 32, 33,” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,270,898 - Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Mar 26, 2024 · IPR2023-01460 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 10, and 11 are obvious over Dua, Hong, and Lockwood.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“lululemon proposes, and Nike does not dispute, that one skilled in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, textile engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience working with knitted textiles for use in fabric-based articles, including apparel such as footwear.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 43–45); see also Prelim. Resp. 9 (“Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). lululemon’s proposed definition is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’484 patent and prior art of record. Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we adopt lululemon’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“lululemon asserts that “the plain and unambiguous language of the claim[s] requires that the flat-knitted element having the claimed features must be formed from a flat-knitting process.” Pet. 13–14. Nike agrees with lululemon’s construction of the claims, i.e., “that the flat-knitted element, including the ‘domed, three dimensional structure,’ ‘must be formed from a flat-knitting process.’” Prelim. Resp. 9–10 (quoting Petition 13–14). In doing so, Nike explains that the claims do not cover “a flat knitted element with a three-dimensional structure formed only after the knitting process is complete.” Id. at 10. Thus, consistent with the parties’ reasoning, we construe the claims to require that the “central portion having a domed, three-dimensional structure” be formed during the flat-knitting process, and not afterward.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the current record, we credit the testimony of lululemon’s expert over that of Nike’s expert. lululemon’s expert points to Hong’s explicit disclosure that “knitting directly the 3D shapes can overcome fabric waste and diminish the labour cost inherent to the use of two-dimensional fabrics.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 91 (citing Ex. 1005, 5) (emphasis added). That disclosure clearly teaches or suggests that the 3D shape is accomplished as part of Hong’s flat-knitting process, and not as part of a post-knitting step. Hong makes this clear not only by its title, “The development of 3D shaped knitted fabrics . . . on a flat knitting machine,” but also throughout its description of the flat-knitting process: - “The use of a new electronic flat knitting machine (Shima Seiki SES 122FF) for producing three-dimensional shaped fabrics for technical purposes is described.” Ex. 1005, Abstract (emphasis added). - “This work describes the use of the new flat knitting machines to knit 3D structures.” Id. at 1 (emphasis added). - “It is not difficult to knit a spherical form in the SES 122FF flat knitting machine.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added). - “By exploiting the capacity of this [flat-knitting] machine, it is possible to knit more types of three-dimensional knitted fabrics.” Id. at 6 (emphasis added). Moreover, we find unpersuasive the testimony of Nike’s expert that Hong’s use of a 2D pattern in the knitting process necessarily means that the article being knitted is a 2D article as opposed to a 3D article. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 43–45. To the extent Hong uses a 2D pattern, it appears to be merely to establish the number of needles and courses to be used in the flat-knitting process that produces the actual 3D article. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 4 (“it is necessary to start by transferring the three-dimensional concept to a two-dimensional pattern, . . . and then establishing the relation between the number of operating needles and the number of knitted courses.”). Nowhere does Hong appear to mention using the 2D pattern to make a 2D article. Rather, as discussed above, Hong is devoted entirely to describing a flat knitting machine that produces three-dimensional shaped fabric articles. We also find unpersuasive the testimony of Nike’s expert that “[t]he pattern shown in [Hong’s] Figure 5(2) . . . is not sufficient to produce the fully formed shape shown in Figure 5(3),” and, thus, one skilled in the art “would not know how to close the tubes shown in Figure 5(3).” Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 46–47. Hong explicitly states that “[d]uring knitting, the two smaller tubes are separately knitted with two cam systems.” Ex. 1005, 4. That disclosure, at this stage, persuades us that Hong teaches or suggests how its flat-knitting process closes the tubular knitted fabrics depicted in the figures. The parties are free to explore this issue further at trial.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“In sum, based on the preliminary record, lululemon sufficiently demonstrates that the asserted Dua-Hong-Lockwood combination teaches or suggests a “domed, three-dimensional structure” that is formed during the “flat knitting process,” as required by claims 1 and 11. Nike does not dispute lululemon’s showing as to the other elements of claims 1 and 11, nor does Nike dispute lululemon’s reason to combine the asserted references. See Prelim. Resp. 26–30. After reviewing lululemon’s showing, we conclude that the record evidence demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood. Thus, lululemon meets the threshold for institution.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,730,484 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Kioba Processing LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00147 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8–22 are unpatentable as anticipated by Lauper or obvious over Lauper, ISO 7816-4, and ISO 14443; claim 23 is obvious over Lauper and Fu, with or without the ISO standards.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner presents the following assessment as to the level of skill in the art: 7 Neither party presents any objective indicia of non-obviousness. As Mr. Zatkovich explains, for purposes of the ’792 Patent, a POSITA[8] would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, data science, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with point-of-sale and payment processing systems, credit card and smartcard payment transactions, and industry practices and standards for processing purchase transactions and authenticating participants. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101–103; Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). We adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner offers claims construction for the following terms: “transaction controller” (claims 8–23); “smartcard chip” (claims 8, 9); “said processor” (claims 10, 14, 25); “mobile user interface device” (claims 8–11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21). Pet. 11–15. For purposes of instituting trial, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the above-noted terms. Inst. 8 Person of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. 10–12. Patent Owner has offered no challenges to any of those claim constructions as a part of this proceeding. After reviewing the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions. See Ex. 1001, 31:39–54; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–100; Pet. 12–15. For convenience, we reproduce them in table format below:” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the record and determine that Petitioner’s proposed grounds of unpatentability based on (1) Lauper alone, and, (2) Lauper, ISO 7816–4, and ISO 14443, find ample evidentiary support in the disclosures of the prior art. In particular, we are satisfied that Petitioner demonstrates that claims 8–22 are anticipated by Lauper and also rendered obvious based on Lauper, ISO 7816–4, and ISO 14443. See Pet. 16–64. We also credit Mr. Zatkovich’s unrefuted testimony offered in support of those proposed grounds of unpatentability. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 318–456. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown that all the limitations of claims 8–22 are accounted for by either Lauper alone, or, alternatively, by Lauper taken with ISO 7816–4 and ISO 14443. We also determine that Petitioner has set forth adequate reason to combine the teachings of the prior art, with a reasonable likelihood of success in combining those teachings. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8–22 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We have considered the record and determine that Petitioner’s proposed grounds of unpatentability based on (1) Lauper alone, and, (2) Lauper, ISO 7816–4, and ISO 14443, find ample evidentiary support in the disclosures of the prior art. In particular, we are satisfied that Petitioner demonstrates that claims 8–22 are anticipated by Lauper and also rendered obvious based on Lauper, ISO 7816–4, and ISO 14443. See Pet. 16–64. We also credit Mr. Zatkovich’s unrefuted testimony offered in support of those proposed grounds of unpatentability. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 318–456. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown that all the limitations of claims 8–22 are accounted for by either Lauper alone, or, alternatively, by Lauper taken with ISO 7816–4 and ISO 14443. We also determine that Petitioner has set forth adequate reason to combine the teachings of the prior art, with a reasonable likelihood of success in combining those teachings. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8–22 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,792 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,792
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.