- Google LLC v. Flypsi, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 26, 2024 · IPR2023-00357 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, and 4 as obvious over Backhaus and Taylor, and claim 3 as obvious over Backhaus, Saksena, and Taylor.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with two years of work experience in the field of telecommunication.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 17–18). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. PO Resp. 5. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner proposes construing the term “channel” in all challenged claims to refer to “[a] channel [that] does not have to be fully connected on both ends or actually transmitting a particular type of information to qualify as a channel.” PO Resp. 6. Petitioner asserts that Backhaus teaches transmitting an access telephone number via a data channel in two ways. Pet. 22–26. We rely only on the “second way” for purposes of this Decision. See Section II.D.3; Pet. 25–26. Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the term “channel” does not impact the parties’ dispute about the “second way” that Backhaus teaches transmitting an access telephone number via a data channel. PO Resp. 21–23; PO Sur-reply 11; Tr. 10:2–11, 68:3–24.1 Therefore, we determine that the term “channel” does not require an express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“had reason to combine the cited teachings of Backhaus and Taylor. Pet. 50– 54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94–100). We agree with Petitioner’s rationale. Specifically, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Backhaus and Taylor so that Backhaus’s SLS platform communicates with the PSTN using Taylor’s PSTN interface. Id. at 53; Ex. 1002 ¶ 97. Doing so would have been obvious because Backhaus teaches using its SLS platform with a PSTN, and Taylor provides an interface that allows an external system, such as Backhaus’s SLS platform, to communicate with a PSTN. Pet. 52–53; Ex. 1002 ¶ 97; Ex. 1005 ¶ 32; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 4, 8. In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using Taylor’s PSTN interface with Backhaus’s SLS platform. Pet. 53–54; Ex. 1002 ¶ 98.” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Sur-reply 15–17. In particular, Patent Owner contends that the Lin Declaration “does not contain any statement of the legal standards the expert understood or was applying, such as standards relating to defining the person of ordinary skill in the art, anticipation, or obviousness,” and Dr. Lin “could not recall whether Petitioner gave him instructions on any legal principle.” PO Resp. 39–40 (citing Ex. 2009, 9:1–11, 14:5–17:6, 23:6–11, 25:3–10, 26:9–22, 33:11–34:1, 34:3–11); PO Sur-reply 16. Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing. We do not rely on the Lin Declaration as evidence of any legal standard or for Dr. Lin’s legal conclusions. Rather, we rely on the Lin Declaration to support our factual determinations regarding the teachings of Backhaus, Saksena, and Taylor, as well as why and how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined those teachings. See Sections II.D.3, II.D.6, II.E.1, II.E.2. Thus, irrespective of whether the Lin Declaration discusses a particular legal standard, we do not disregard the entire Lin Declaration.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 11,218,585 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,218,585 - Google LLC v. Flypsi, Inc. (D/B/A Flyp)All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 26, 2024 · IPR2023-00359 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, and 4 over Backhaus and Taylor, and claim 3 over Backhaus, Taylor, and Saksena.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art . . . at the time of the alleged invention of the ’554 patent would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with two years of work experience in the field of telecommunication . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 4–5 (referencing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 17–18). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 5. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s undisputed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We find that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’554 patent.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“challenged claims to resolve the underlying controversy.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner proposes construing the term “channel” in all challenged claims to refer to “[a] channel [that] does not have to be fully connected on both ends or actually transmitting a particular type of information to qualify as a channel.” PO Resp. 6. Petitioner asserts that Backhaus teaches transmitting an access telephone number via a data channel in two ways. Pet. 22–26. As will be evident from our analysis below, we rely only on the “second way” for purposes of this Decision. Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the term “channel” does not impact the parties’ dispute about the “second way” that Backhaus teaches transmitting an access telephone number via a data channel. PO Resp. 21–22; Pet. Reply 3 (“Flyp does not even allege that its construction is relevant to the ‘second way’ the Petition addresses limitation [1.b].”); PO Sur-reply 11; Tr. 10:2–11, 68:3–24.5 Therefore, we determine that the term “channel” does not require an express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability. 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)). Also, we determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes. To the extent that the scope of any particular claim term requires discussion, however, we provide it in our assessment of the challenges, which we turn to next.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“suggest that we categorially disregard Dr. Lin’s declaration. As a general point, our precedential decision in Xerox does not provide a blank condemnation of declaration testimony that is identical or virtually identical to language in a paper. Xerox found that the “cited declaration testimony is conclusory and unsupported, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight.” Xerox at 15; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Here, Dr. Lin cites to evidence to support certain testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 73 (citing to Ex. 1007 and Ex. 1011). Also, we do not rely on the Lin Declaration as evidence of any legal standard or for Dr. Lin’s legal conclusions. Rather, we rely on the Lin Declaration to support our factual determinations regarding the teachings of Backhaus, Saksena, and Taylor, as well as why and how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined those teachings. Finally, Patent Owner’s arguments go to the weight of Dr. Lin’s testimony. We assess the appropriate weight to give the testimony in our analyses below.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“provided a motivation to combine the teachings of a PSTN interface in Backhaus’s system, even though Backhaus discloses interfacing with the PSTN. Backhaus is silent as to how its system interfaces with the PSTN. As such, we agree with Petition that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to connect SLS platform 115 with the PSTN and to also include a PSTN interface in order to facilitate such an connection when implementing Backhaus’s system and processes—such that SLS platform 115 could provide the disclosed second line services to many device users connected to the PSTN that is known to provide reliable communications. Pet. 50. Indeed, Patent Owner’s argument that Backhaus discloses interacting with the PSTN strengthens Petitioner’s position, demonstrating that a person having ordinary skill in the art, when considering Backhaus’s and Taylor’s teachings together, would have used a PSTN interface to ensure a connection with a PSTN. Cf. Pet. Reply 19 (“Rather, it shows that a [person having ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to ‘include a PSTN interface similar to that discussed in Taylor when implementing Backhaus’s telephony service system.’” (citing Pet., 49–51)).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 11,012,554 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,012,554 - Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Intellectual Pixels LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 5, 2024 · IPR2021-00237 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Wiltshire and Saha, with Chen or PC Magazine additionally applied to the specified dependent claims.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal of the Final Written Decision with the Federal Circuit. See Paper 39. On October 13, 2023, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the appeal vacating our Final Written Decision and remanding for further proceedings consistent with its decision. Sony, 2023 WL 6773879. The Federal Circuit found that our determination that Petitioner’s asserted reference Wiltshire does not disclose the “generating” limitation of claims 1 and 8 was not supported by substantial evidence. Id. at *2–4. The Court vacated our Final Written Decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. Id. at *5. After the Federal Circuit issued its mandate, we asked the parties to propose a procedure on remand. Ex. 3001, 2. The parties proposed an agreed-upon procedure to allow post-remand briefing with no additional evidence or expert declarations. Id. at 1. We issued an Order authorizing each party to file opening and responsive briefs. Paper 43. The parties then filed the following briefs: Petitioner’s Opening Brief Pursuant to Paper No. 43 (Paper 47, “Pet. Remand Br.”), Patent Owner’s Opening Brief on Remand (Paper 46, “PO Remand Br.”), Petitioner’s Response Brief Pursuant” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“6773879, at *4. The Federal Circuit concluded that was improper. As the Court explained, “the existence of those examples does not exclude other examples where new images are created,” and “[a]lthough both parties agree[d] the game Doom requires creating new images, [we incorrectly] determined that listing Doom in the specification was not a sufficient disclosure.” Id. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, the logical conclusion from the Federal Circuit’s reasoning is that our finding that Wiltshire is silent as to the content of that compressed MPEG stream has now been rejected. We must “credit[] Wiltshire’s disclosure of applying its system to video games like Doom, which require ‘generating’ new images.” Id. Based on that reading of Wiltshire, Petitioner persuasively shows that the combination of Wiltshire and Saha teaches compressing those new images using MPEG and transmitting those as compressed frames. Dr. Fuchs testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Wiltshire’s disclosure that “if the image is displayed or updated, it is then sent to the client in the form of a ‘video stream,” and that “[t]ransmitting the updated images as a video stream allows Wiltshire’s system to be used with the wide variety of games it contemplates, including arcade games (like Doom) that continually update images on the screen.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 46; see also id. ¶ 49 (“The video stream must be dynamically generated because Wiltshire system must be capable of playing real-time interactive games like Doom.”); Pet. Reply 13–16. We find Dr. Fuchs’s testimony persuasive and consistent with the Court’s guidance as to Wiltshire’s disclosure.” slip op. at 48
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“objection to excluding Exhibit 1024 from the record. Id. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude as to Exhibit 1024 is granted.” slip op. at 89
Patent outcomesUS 10,681,109 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,681,109 - PTAB · Apr 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01360 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–23 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“A claim “shall be construed 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).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). At this stage of the proceeding, neither party presents any claim terms for construction. Pet. 2– 3; Prelim. Resp. 3. Based on the present record, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this time. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374 (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 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless communication systems.” Pet. 5, n.1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 17. Dr. Butler further states that “[m]ore education, e.g., a doctorate in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical field, would compensate for fewer years of work experience.” Id. Patent Owner states that “[f]or the purposes of this preliminary response,” it “does not challenge that definition.” Prelim. Resp. 3. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Butler and not disputed by Patent Owner as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing as to this limitation for purposes of institution. In this regard, Petitioner has introduced sufficient evidence at this stage of the proceeding that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Rao and Araujo as Petitioner proposes. This evidence includes the testimony of Dr. Butler that one of ordinary skill “would have found it obvious to combine a Remote Access Client as taught by Rao with a PPM and request deflector as taught by Araujo to provide a client that better ‘use[s] the energy in a way that strikes a balance between providing functionality and maintaining longevity of the charge.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 75. It also includes Dr. Butler’s testimony that, in implementing Rao’s filtering, prioritization, and queuing functionality, one of ordinary skill “would have perceived opportunities for improving the policy management capabilities already present in Rao to impart additional advantages, such as optimizing power use,” and would have known that “mobile devices use techniques for optimizing the use of constrained resources, including network bandwidth and battery power.” Id. ¶ 77. Dr. Butler further explains that one of ordinary skill “would have recognized the importance of power management at least because, in mobile devices, applications cannot execute without sufficient power.” Id. Additionally, Dr. Butler testifies that, for these reasons, one of ordinary skill “would have looked to policy-based power management such as taught in Araujo to serve as one of Rao’s ‘multitude of ways to define client-side application priorities,’” to create a device that “would both manage power according to the PPM techniques of Araujo and manage network use according to the techniques of both Rao and Araujo.” Id. ¶ 78. And, Dr. Butler explains, based on Rao and Araujo, one of ordinary skill “would have understood and found obvious that policy enforcement” in the Rao-Araujo combination “may be based on application state (foreground, background) and power state (battery/plugged-in). Id. ¶ 80. We determine that this testimony is reasonable and credible based on the record presently before us, and is unrebutted by countervailing evidence from Patent Owner. We also determine that Petitioner has introduced sufficient evidence that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the proposed Rao-Araujo combination. This evidence includes the testimony of Dr. Butler that one of ordinary skill “would have expected success integrating a PPM and deflector components as taught by Araujo into a remote access client as taught by Rao,” that “the request deflector (Araujo) and packet capture mechanism (Rao) serve similar functions,” and that “[c]ombining such functions would have required only routine programming skill well within the skill set of” a person of ordinary skill. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81, 83.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,609,544 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · IPR2023-01462 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–26 were unpatentable, finding the asserted combinations did not teach blocking an Internet service access request.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15– 17). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Kevin Butler. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15–17. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description, which is consistent with the ’445 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction A claim “shall be construed 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).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). At this stage of the proceeding, neither party presents any claim terms for construction. Pet. 2– 3; Prelim. Resp. 4. Based on the present record, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this time. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374 (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 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that its system can “classify[] and/or control[] network access requests (e.g., IP address requests).” Ex. 1001, 11:27–32 (emphasis added). In particular, the ’455 patent describes an example where “before a connection is allowed to be opened . . . it is blocked and a message is sent back to the application . . . that the network access attempt was not allowed/blocked.” Id. at 91:41– 49 (emphasis added). In contrast, the ’455 patent explains that its system also can “classify[] and/or control[] . . . network capacity/resources usage (e.g., bandwidth usage).” Id. at 11:27–32. For example, a “socket can be allowed to open but after some point in time (e.g., based on network service usage . . . ), the stream is blocked or the socket is terminated.” Id. at 91:49– 54. In other words, the ’455 patent distinguishes between 1) blocking an Internet service access request before a connection is open; and 2) blocking a network stream after a connection is open. Id. at 11:27–32, 91:41–54.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,277,445 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · IPR2023-01362 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 7–9 were unpatentable as obvious.
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 . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Here, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Thus, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The ’184 patent states that its system can “classify[] and/or control[] network access requests (e.g., IP address requests).” Ex. 1001, 11:27–32 (emphasis added). In particular, the ’184 patent describes an example where “before a connection is allowed to be opened . . . it is blocked and a message is sent back to the application . . . that the network access attempt was not allowed/blocked.” Id. at 91:41– 49 (emphasis added). In contrast, the ’184 patent explains that its system also can “classify[] and/or control[] . . . network capacity/resources usage (e.g., bandwidth usage).” Id. at 11:27–32. For example, a “socket can be allowed to open but after some point in time (e.g., based on network service usage . . . ), the stream is blocked or the socket is terminated.” Id. at 91:49– 54. In other words, the ’184 patent distinguishes between 1) blocking an Internet service access request before a connection is open; and 2) blocking a network stream after a connection is open. Id. at 11:27–32, 91:41–54; see also id. at 106:39–43 (distinguishing between an “Internet service access request” and “network activity”).” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,271,184 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · IPR2023-01361 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Samsung did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–6, 10–20 would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15– 17). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Kevin Butler. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15–17. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. Prelim. Resp. 4. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the 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). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 2–3; Prelim. Resp. 4. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- 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 . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Here, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Thus, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“allowed to open but after some point in time (e.g., based on network service usage . . . ), the stream is blocked or the socket is terminated.” Id. at 91:49– 54. In other words, the ’184 patent distinguishes between 1) blocking an Internet service access request before a connection is open; and 2) blocking a network stream after a connection is open. Id. at 11:27–32, 91:41–54; see also id. at 106:39–43 (distinguishing between an “Internet service access request” and “network activity”). On this record, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that the combination of Rao, Oestvall, and Freund teaches blocking an Internet service access request. First, Petitioner asserts that Rao’s applications “communicat[e] over the Internet and receiv[e] service from servers,” and thus a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood or found it obvious that Rao’s applications would be configured to send packetized communications over the Internet to such servers requesting access to their corresponding services (an Internet service access request).” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 107–108; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 90, 179, 184). Even if Petitioner is correct that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that Rao’s applications send an Internet service access request, that alone does not show that Rao also teaches blocking the Internet service access request. See id.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,271,184 - PTAB · Mar 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01336 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–25 over all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“individually, rather than the combined teachings of Rao and Oestvall that are asserted in the Petition. As Petitioner explains, Oestvall teaches the claimed selective blocking because “Oestvall’s device prevents the application from ‘being given any services or consuming any resources,’ so a POSITA would have understood and found obvious that such prevention would block the application’s access to network resources (e.g., WWAN modem).” Pet. 29 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 23). In addition, “Oestvall describes that its scheduler regulates access to resources by an untrusted application depending on whether the application runs in the background or foreground.” Id. at 29. Petitioner also explains why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to employ Oestvall’s blocking strategy in Rao—“to increase device efficiency where device operation increases battery consumption, such as when the device is engaged in network activity over a WWAN network.” Id. at 31. Thus, even if Patent Owner is correct in its characterizations of Rao, those arguments do not ultimately undermine obviousness because Petitioner adequately explains how Oestvall teaches the features allegedly missing in Rao.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In an inter partes review proceeding, we construe patent claims using the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the 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). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 3; see generally Prelim. Resp. 8. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,137,701 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2024 · IPR2023-01253 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 were unpatentable; the asserted art did not teach or suggest indicating network access conditions to the application.
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 in view of the present record 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. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“obvious because “Rao’s device can run the Java operating system” and a skilled artisan “would have understood and found obvious that the application would have received an indication, via the Java sockets API, of the network access condition.” Pet. 29. We disagree. Although Rao mentions Java as one in a long list of example operating systems (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 128 ), Petitioner’s argument is insufficient because it does not explain why using Java necessarily means applications will receive the specific indication claimed—one that notifies an application of network access conditions. Likewise, Petitioner offers no reason why one skilled in the art using Petitioner’s asserted combination of Rao and Oestvall would have been motivated to do so. See id. Absent such an explanation, Petitioner’s argument amounts to no more than asserting that Rao teaches using Java and that Java sockets were known. Petitioner’s argument lacks known and why employing that notification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (noting that “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2 at least two years of industry experience in services and application implementation in communication networks,” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 17; see Pet. 11 n.3. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. On this record, we agree with Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 2–3; Prelim. Resp. 8. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,143,976 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationInstitutedPTAB · Feb 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01208 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that the Cook and Bennett combination renders the claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, when instituting an inter partes review, we “will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Here, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on all the grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“the following two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential).” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent) and at least two years of industry or equivalent research experience in the field of wireless energy transfer.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Mark Allen. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–41. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description at this stage of the proceeding. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the 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). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,912,687
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.