- Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00697 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 were not proven unpatentable: Rauhala does not disclose the required simultaneous signal-strength determinations, and Masaaki does not cure the deficiency for claim 4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Following institution, Patent Owner maintained the same level of ordinary skill proposed in its preliminary response and did not address our discussion of the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 24–25; see also Prelim. Resp. 24. For the reasons discussed in the Institution Decision, we adopt and apply for this Decision the level of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. See Dec. 8–10. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’825 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27– 31. Our decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the desired signal and interferer signal must be received at the same time. The plain language of the claim requires the wireless transceiver to “receiv[e] a wireless signal having a desired signal and an interferer signal,” the determining of a signal strength of the interferer signal and the determining of a signal strength of the desired signal must be performed at the same time; otherwise, the determinations of signal strengths would not be of the same wireless signal. The specification supports this understanding. “When a receiver is actively receiving a desired signal, each block in the signal path has at its input the desired signal as well as noise and possibly interfering signals.” Ex. 1001, 5:20–22; see also id. at 5:31–33 (“FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate examples of desired signals, interferers, and noise that may be received by one of the various circuits in a” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Rauhala does not state that the signal strengths are measured simultaneously or at the same time. Indeed, as discussed above, Rauhala indicates unequivocally in the same paragraph the opposite—that detector DET provides to control unit 42 “an indication about either the receive channel signal strength RSS or the strength of any signal on the reception band.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 17. Rauhala describes that “control unit 42 provides two one-bit control signals cA and cM” based on indications received from detector DET. Id. Importantly, Rauhala indicates that “at the same time as” describes how the control unit 42 uses the received inputs RSS and RSSn shown in Figure 4, which are described earlier in paragraph 17 as indications of either RSS or RSSn from detector DET. Id. (“Signal cA is 0 when signal RSS is greater than S4 and signal RSSn is at the 11 Dr. Baker’s reply declaration correctly quotes Rauhala paragraph 17 but cites to paragraph 18. We deem this harmless error. same time smaller than Sn. . . . Signal cM is 1 when signal RSS is not greater than S4 and signal RSSn is at the same time at least Sn. Otherwise, signal cM is 0.”). The burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rauhala discloses the disputed limitations as arranged or combined in the claim. Petitioner does not persuasively reconcile these “either/or” statements regarding the functioning of detector DET with the “at the same time as” statements regarding control signals output by control unit 42 in paragraph 17. We do not find persuasive Petitioner counsel’s position expressed at the hearing that Rauhala’s “either/or” statements are “simply an imprecise description” (Tr. 16:22–24). We do not see a lack of precision in Rauhala’s “either/or” statements.” slip op. at 30
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“When asked at his deposition to explain Rauhala’s use of the word “or” regarding the functioning of detector DET, Dr. Baker asserted that “[detectors] can be designed to determine RSS or RSSn.” Ex. 2016, 85:5– 12. We find Dr. Baker’s testimony that “it’s reasonable that if you can design . . . the detector to detect one or the other, you can also design it to detect both” to be without factual support. Id. at 85:13–16. He points to no textbook or other independent evidence to support that would have led one of ordinary skill to design such a detector or to support that one of ordinary skill would have understood Rauhala’s detector to be so designed. Furthermore, Dr. Baker recognizes that “Rauhala doesn’t teach the details of what’s in the detector.” Id. at 91:6–7. We give little weight to Dr. Baker’s unsupported testimony that one could design a detector to detect both RSS and RSSn from the same wireless signal. See 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.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., No. IPR2022-00624, 2022 WL 3648989, at *6 (PTAB 2022) (precedential) (Director affirming because “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”).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 10,129,825 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,129,825 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00698 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–11, 13, and 19–21 were not shown unpatentable because Rauhala does not disclose simultaneous desired and interferer signal-strength determinations, defeating anticipation and the obviousness combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The two proposals are materially similar in the education requirement, but differ marginally in professional experience required (three versus five years). See supra. While we were persuaded, on the preliminary record, that both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals were consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’202 patent and the prior art of record, on balance, we determined that Petitioner’s proposal was a better reflection of the level of skill in the prior art, and we therefore adopted it for our Institution Decision. See Institution Dec. 12–13. For this Decision, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’202 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker. See Baker I Decl. ¶¶ 28–32. Our Decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“85:13–16. He admits that “Rauhala doesn’t teach the details of what’s in the detector.” Id. at 91:6–7. He points to no textbook or other independent evidence that would have led a person of ordinary skill to design such a detector. Our Trial Practice Guide cautions against crediting such unsupported testimony: The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, the testimony must be based on sufficient facts and data. Fed. R. Evid. 702(b). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (Nov. 2019).7 We therefore give Dr, Baker’s unsupported testimony on this issue little weight.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Having considered the positions of the parties, we find that for the purpose of this decision, we do not need to construe these terms to resolve a dispute.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“requirement.” Pet. Reply 5. We do not agree with Petitioner. We find that the language of the claims supports Patent Owner’s argument that the desired signal and the interferer signal are received together. As discussed infra, claim limitations 7.7 and 7.8 recite determining a signal strength of the interferer signal and determining a signal strength of the desired signal. These determinations must be performed at the same time; otherwise, the determinations of signal strengths would not be of the same wireless signal. See Larson II Decl. ¶ 70; Baker II Decl. ¶¶ 48–49 (explaining that consideration of signal strengths detected at the same time would be “essential”). The specification of the ’202 patent further supports this finding: “When a receiver is actively receiving a desired signal, each block in the signal path has at its input the desired signal as well as noise and possibly interfering signals.” Ex. 1001, 5:22–24; see also Figs. 2A, 2B (showing interferer signals and desired signals together).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,524,202 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,524,202 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00342 · APJ Phillip A Bennett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang and over Prajapat and Wang; the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“3. May Not Enlarge the Claim Scope An amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the” slip op. at 87
- Strike new argumentDenied
“comprise briefs filed by Petitioner in support of a motion to dismiss for lack of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the parallel district court litigation involving the challenged patents. The exhibits were submitted together with Patent Owner’s Sur-reply (Paper 33). We have not relied on Exhibit 2006 or Exhibit 2007 in our analysis. Accordingly, we deny the motion as moot.” slip op. at 9
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2005–” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining compatible embodiments, and we credit Dr. Lieberman’s testimony because he supports his testimony with a passage from Lebrun that is consistent with his conclusion. Id. (stating “Lebrun describes several ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ which includes a subsection of ‘multiple group surfing channels.’ Ex. 1005, 37:19, 43:5 (emphasis in original).”). Consistent with Lebrun’s description, Dr. Lieberman opines, and we agree, that “[a] POSITA would understand ‘multiple group surfing channels’ would be one example/scenario of the ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ and the latter encompasses the former and the two embodiments are compatible and combinable.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 18.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 8,527,591 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,527,591 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00341 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over Lebrun and Wang or over Prajapat and Wang because the combinations did not teach key invitation and webpage retrieval limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, 7 Patent Owner has not offered objective evidence of non-obviousness. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. 21 (indicating Petitioner is not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations). least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 12; see Dec. 10–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 37. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part
“surfing server as forwarding the session-creation message to the invited web client. PO Sur-reply 12. Although Lebrun describes the group-surfing server as “informing the participants in the group-surfing server session” after receiving the session-creation message and creating the group-surfing session, Lebrun does not describe forwarding or otherwise sending the session-creation message to the participants. Ex. 1005, 32:26–28, 44:12–14. Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“receive webpage content from the website server in particular ways as identified in limitations [1e] and [1g]. Similarly, claim 1 requires the invitee device to retrieve data from the website server in response to receiving “the information related to the shared web browsing interaction from the synchronization server” (limitation [1f.iii]). For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence its combination of Lebrun and Wang does so. For the required website server interaction, in its Petition, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s description of an alternative embodiment applicable only when no cookies or other identity information are involved (Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). See, e.g., Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). As Patent Owner indicates, this alternative is not relevant to the subject matter recited in claim 1 which requires identity information. PO Resp. 45. Petitioner does not address this shortcoming in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Rather, in its Reply, for website server interaction, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s functionality of sending a web page from the web server to the web client as shown in Lebrun’s Figure 1. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 32:21–24, 31:27–30, Fig. 1). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Lebrun discloses that (i) a URL for the initial web page is included in session-creation message 151 (Ex. 1005, 32:21–24), (ii) the web site sends a web page directly to the web client (Fig. 1), and (iii) the web site delivers information 132 to web clients or the group-surfing server 140 “in response Pet. Reply 11. Although this shows the web site sending a web page directly to a web client, the prior art of Lebrun does not do so in the manner required by the claims (limitations [1e], [1f.i], [1f.iii], [1g]).” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 9,483,448 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,483,448 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00339 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang; the Board did not reach the separate Prajapat and Wang challenge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (2) at least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 11–12; see Dec. 9–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 42. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data” and, as a result, this portion of the specification should limit the claim term. PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). The quoted portion of Mr. Friedman’s testimony, however, addresses other terms in the specification and not “information related to a shared web browsing interaction.” PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). As such, the testimony cited by Patent Owner does not support Patent Owner’s position. Accordingly, we determine that the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data” in the written description. c. Plain and Ordinary Meaning Because the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data,” we look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., from the ordinary meaning will be adopted “when the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner arguing that “web browsing interaction data” should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning) (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13). Notably, both Dr. Lieberman and Mr. Friedman agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is sufficient to inform how one of ordinary skill would have understood the term. Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (Dr. Lieberman testifying: “The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions. No additional definition or limitation is required in my opinion, nor is there any special or specific meaning given to the term in the specification of the ’145 patent.”); Ex. 1033, 171:5–16 (Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Friedman, testifying that “the plain and ordinary meaning is sufficient.”). According to Petitioner, the plain and ordinary meaning is “data related to web browsing interactions.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13); Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (“The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions.”). Patent Owner’s expert declined to opine on what the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” other than it excludes webpages and partially filled webpages related to a web browsing interaction. See Ex. 1033, 171:5–16. slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we conclude that the plain language of the claims does not require “web browsing interaction data” to be limited to data describing interaction performed on a website by a host device. We turn to the specification because the meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is informed “not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The written description does not provide a definition or clear meaning for “web browsing interaction data.” Patent Owner acknowledges the term is not expressly used in the written description. PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner, however, identifies “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” as a term that is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data.” PO Resp. 18, 29. We recognize the specification term “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is substantially similar10 to Petitioner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” as “data related to web browsing interactions.” 11 Patent Owner identifies three passages that each describe the present invention as receiving information related to a shared web browsing interaction performed by a host device and performing the shared web browsing interaction based on the received information. PO Resp. 17–18 (block quoting Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:10–24). The identified passages, however, do not show intention to manifestly limit “web browsing interaction data” to data describing interactions” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“forth by Petitioner (Pet. 22–34) discloses or suggests all limitations recited by claim 1, we consider Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Lebrun and Wang in the manner proposed to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 19–22. (i) Articulated Reasoning To demonstrate obviousness, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Wang’s activating a session invitation with Lebrun’s invitation to join a group-surfing session. Pet. 28. Specifically, Petitioner contends that “activating an invitation via a designated URL address would further enable” Lebrun’s group-surfing server “to coordinate and manage the group-surfing session, which would further Lebrun’s objective of providing an ‘improved technique for group access to web sites.’” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:1). We agree with Petitioner that activating an invitation via a designated URL address would be a technique that helps coordinate a group-surfing session and would enable multiple related users being able to access “substantially the same” slip op. at 63
Patent outcomesUS 9,185,145 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,185,145 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Liberty Peak Ventures LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00422 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–5, and 7–16 as anticipated by Foss; claims 2, 6, and 17–20 as obvious over Foss and Hirka.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–161). Patent Owner does not submit a contrary skill definition. See PO Resp. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s skill definition is not “well-grounded in the facts,” but this assertion is conclusory and unpersuasive. See id. at 11. We discuss this assertion again below in the context of Patent Owner’s merits arguments. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is generally consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’301 patent and prior art of record. We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of experience indefinitely with no upper bound. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill with the exception of the language “at least.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“possession when the same dictionary proposes other definitions, such as “[a]ssociated with.” See PO Resp. 6–7. Nor does Patent Owner point to any disclosure in the ’301 patent specification that supports its more restrictive construction. When discussing “account information” in connection with an “account,” the specification merely describes “account information for the account.” Ex. 1002, 1:54–55, 10:49–50 (emphasis added). The phrase “account information of the separate account” does not occur in the specification, and neither party addresses any relevant prosecution history. There is no basis in the intrinsic record, then, for reading a restrictive interpretation of this phrase. Patent Owner overlooks that where the specification does not use a term restrictively, “the broader dictionary definition . . . is preferable.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d, 1303, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[J]udges are free to . . . rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” (internal quotation omitted)). As noted above, the parties point to no intrinsic evidence, whether in the specification or prosecution history, that informs the meaning of the term “of.” And the definition “associated with” in Patent Owner’s proffered dictionary is a broader definition than the definition “possessing.” See Ex. 2001, 2. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “account information of the separate account” in claims 1 and 7 at least encompasses “account information associated with the separate account.”” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We disagree with Patent Owner that this limitation is not inherently disclosed by Foss based on the possibility of Foss’s system sending debit account information instead of overdraft account information. That is because “account information of the separate account” encompasses “account information associated with the separate account,” under the correct claim construction. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 387 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 17). As noted above, Mr. Zatkovich testifies that “the account information request would necessarily include account information associated with the overdraft account.” Id. ¶ 386 (emphasis changed). Foss’s linkage between debit and overdraft accounts means that Foss’s debit account information would necessarily be information associated with the overdraft account. See id. ¶ 387; Ex. 1008 ¶ 17. Thus, under the proper construction of the word “of,” Patent Owner’s assertion that Foss’s system could have sent a debit card number, rather than an overdraft account number, effectively proves Petitioner’s inherency argument. In other words, Foss’s system necessarily must have sent either debit account information or overdraft account information as part of its authorization request. Otherwise, Foss’s system would not have been able to determine which overdraft account to authorize. Foss therefore inherently teaches “sending, using the computer-based authorization system, an account information request that includes account information of the separate account.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner contends that dependent claims 2, 6, and 17–20 would have been obvious over the combination of Foss and Hirka. Pet. 68–84. Petitioner provides a detailed analysis explaining where the combination of Foss and Hirka discloses the limitations in claims 2, 6, and 17–20 and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Foss and Hirka. Patent Owner does not dispute these assertions except to raise the same argument it made for claim 1. PO Resp. 18–19. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence and find them persuasive. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, and 17–20 would have been obvious over the combination of Foss and Hirka.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,905,301 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,905,301 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Liberty Peak Ventures LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00421 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Gopinathan and Hirka; the Board did not reach anticipation over Gopinathan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based on these and other disclosures in Hirka, Mr. Zatkovich testifies, and we agree, that Hirka discloses the debit card aspect of the authentication limitation. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 170, 188–189.7 For example, Mr. Zatkovich states that Hirka “demonstrate[s] that a debit card used in the transaction . . . is associated with both a demand deposit account (e.g., a ‘cash account’) and an overdraft account.” Id. ¶ 188. Mr. Zatkovich’s opinions are well-supported by record evidence, including the citations to Hirka we discuss above. Patent Owner does not address these disclosures in Hirka and does not rebut Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony with expert testimony of its own. See PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner’s assertion that “the combination suggests only authenticating a transaction against an available credit limit” entirely overlooks Hirka’s disclosure regarding debit cards and demand deposit 6 No line numbers are provided on Hirka’s first page. 7 Mr. Zatkovich also relies on the teachings of Hirka ’404 (Ex. 1007), which was cited by the Examiner during prosecution. E.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 170, 188. Although Hirka ’404 further supports Mr. Zatkovich’s findings, we view Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony sufficiently supported by the combined teachings of Gopinathan and Hirka. accounts. See id. at 16. Patent Owner’s argument therefore fails to undermine Petitioner’s persuasive arguments and supporting evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“a POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] 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 payment processing systems, credit card and debit card payment transactions, and industry practices and standards for processing purchase transactions and authenticating participants. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–161). Patent Owner does not submit a contrary skill definition. See PO Resp. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is generally consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’100 patent and prior art of record. We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of experience indefinitely with no upper bound. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill with the exception of the language “at least.”” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner proposes constructions for the “authenticating” step of claim 1 as well as for the terms “demand deposit account” and “overdraft account.” PO Resp. 6–7. Petitioner does not dispute these constructions, and Patent Owner does not appear to rely on them in its arguments. See Reply; PO Resp. Accordingly, we determine that no claim terms require construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner, as supported by the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gopinathan and Hirka at least “because doing so would have protected cardholders and card issuing systems from fraud associated with debit cards with overdraft protection.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 191). In other words, in the combination, Hirka’s debit cards with overdraft protection would benefit from Gopinathan’s fraud protection disclosure. See id. And conversely, Gopinathan’s system would benefit from Hirka’s overdraft protection. See id. Patent Owner does not squarely address Petitioner’s rationales to combine. In asserting that “the teachings of Hirka add nothing to the teachings already present in Gopinathan,” Patent Owner overlooks that Hirka would provide the benefit of overdraft protection to Gopinathan’s fraud detection system. See PO Resp. 15; Reply 17 (arguing that “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Gopinathan with Hirka to protect cardholders from fraud ‘associated with debit cards’ and ‘overdraft protection’”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 191. We further agree with Petitioner that Hirka would have provided the benefit of debit cards to Gopinathan’s fraud detection system. Reply 19 (“[I]t would have been obvious (and a POSITA would have been motivated to) to modify Gopinathan with the ‘debit card’ system as taught in Hirka in order to expand the reach and applicability of the fraud detection system taught.” (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 654–662)). And vice versa, Gopinathan would have provided the benefit of fraud protection to Hirka’s debit card and overdraft accounts. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 171); Pet. 24.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,837,100 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,837,100 - PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00200 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the Hays obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We use the following two-part framework in determining whether to exercise our discretion under § 325(d): (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 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.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had an undergraduate degree in game design or development, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience working with computer gaming systems or software application development.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–69). Petitioner also contends that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education or vice versa.” Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–69). Patent Owner does not comment on the level of ordinary skill in the Preliminary Response. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’056 patent and the asserted prior art, except that we change qualifier “at least” to “about” to avoid including experience levels that exceed the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction Neither party proposes any claim terms for construction. On this record, we determine that no terms need express construction to determine whether we should institute. 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” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,117,056 - PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00171 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“proceeding if the challenge to the patent is based on matters previously presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) states, in pertinent part, “[i]n determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We use the following two-part framework in determining whether to exercise our discretion under § 325(d): (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 first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the reasons discussed above and based on Petitioner’s contentions and evidence, summarized above, we are persuaded, on this record, that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over the teachings of Hays.7” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Patent Owner argues that “Hays is only a ‘printed publication’ under § 311(b) as of the date it became available to the public—i.e., its publication date, which notably, is after the June 26, 2007 priority date of the ’958 Patent,” and, therefore, that Hays is “ineligible to be prior art in an IPR.” Prelim. Resp. 41–44. We disagree with Patent Owner’s statutory interpretation. Hays is a printed publication, having been published on May 1, 2008, as Patent Owner acknowledges. See Ex. 1005, code (43); see also Prelim. Resp. 41 (acknowledging publication date). On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Hays is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), having been filed “by another . . . in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent.” See Pet. 8. Thus, Petitioner asserts a permissible ground of unpatentability by arguing that claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)), specifically based on Hays, which is prior art and a printed publication.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction Neither party proposes any claim terms for construction. On this record, we determine that no terms need express construction to determine whether we should institute. 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))). Nevertheless, we note two issues of claim interpretation for the parties to consider. First, the parties may wish to address the interpretation of the phrase “pre-selected in-game advertising” during the trial for the reasons discussed below in §§ II.E.2 and II.F.1. Second, the parties may wish to address the interpretation of the subject matter of dependent claims 5 and 12 reciting “wherein the message is pre-selected by the server based on a model type associated with the mobile communication device, a service subscription associated with the mobile communication device, or a service provider for the service subscription associated with the mobile communication device.” In particular, the parties may wish to address what it means to be “pre-selected” in this context.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,617,958 - PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00209 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that PLR would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] 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(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board 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) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“focuses on a high-level comparison of the references. See Prelim. Resp. 14– 19. Such high-levels of similarity are to be expected as all of the references involve advertising in computer game programs. But such high-level similarity is not sufficient. Instead, Patent Owner must demonstrate that the references relied on in the Petition are substantially the same in all material respects to the prior art the Examiner actually relied on. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01445, Paper 15 at 16 (PTAB March 2, 2022) (Institution Decision) (“The issue is not just whether the same elements can be found in each of the references, but whether the elements function the same way. That is, even though Leong and Bates have the same elements, that does not mean that the elements interact with each other the same way or perform the same functions as recited in the claims.”); see also Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 15 (holding that prior art is substantially the same if “Petitioner relies on [the new art] in substantially the same manner as the Examiner cited [the previous art] during prosecution such that [the new art] discloses substantially the same information as [the previous art] in relevant part.”).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s statutory interpretation. Ho is a printed publication, having been published in January 2008, as Patent Owner acknowledges. See Ex. 1004, code (43) (publication date of January 17, 2008); see also Prelim. Resp. 45 (acknowledging publication date). On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that Ho is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), having been filed “by another . . . in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent.”11 See Pet. 7 (“For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner uses a June 26, 2007 priority date” for the ’662 patent); see also Ex. 1004, code (22) (filing date of July 12, 2006). Thus, Petitioner asserts a permissible ground of unpatentability” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“claim 115 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine the relevant teachings of Ho and Aoki. See Pet. 17–26, 30. With the exception of “hot spot” and “hot spot information,” which we discussed above in Section II.G.3(a), at the present time Patent Owner does not dispute that Ho teaches those limitations. See Prelim. Resp. 26–35. After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and information regarding the limitations identified above, including the Zagal Declaration, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that Ho teaches limitations 1(pre), 1(a), (1)(b)(1), 1(d), and 1(e) and that a person having” slip op. at 39
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,427,662
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.