- PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01281 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 13 would have been obvious over Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (“POSITA”) in Sept. 2007 would have had a working knowledge of network communications techniques and highspeed packet processing technologies. Ex.1003, ¶20. A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent training, and approximately two years of work experience in network communications. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶20. Pet. 13. We use this definition for purposes of this Decision because it appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art and the ’471 patent.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that no terms require express construction. Pet. 13. We do not expressly construe any terms at this time. Realtime, 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 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As to the claim requirement that the direct memory access device concurrently write the packet buffer memory and the protocol stack layer memory, Petitioner asserts that neither Cornett nor Paatela explicitly describes the timing of packet writing. Pet. 42. Petitioner asserts, however, that Nelson discloses writing a packet header separately and in parallel with writing the entire packet. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 6:66–7:4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). Indeed, Nelson explains that the parallel storage action “avoid[s] having to read the frames out of the [larger frame] buffer” when reading a header, which eliminates the need for a separate reading step and “allows the routing decision to be made before the [frame] buffer becomes available.” Ex. 1006, 2:1–22 (containing the quoted language), 7:1–4 (describing “parallel . . . storage”). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to write the packet header at the same time as writing the entire packet in Cornett, because Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson are concerned with speed, and writing in parallel would increase speed (vs. writing serially). Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90); see also id. at 26 (similar argument). Reviewing Petitioner’s position with respect to independent claim 13, we determine that Petitioner has addressed each limitation in sufficient detail and with adequate citations to the record. Petitioner has also provided sufficient reasons for combining the teachings of Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson with a reasonable expectation of success. Reviewing the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,738,471 - PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01347 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–27 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“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). We must also consider the non-exclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part), which “provide useful insight into how to apply the framework” under § 325(d). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Those non-exclusive factors include: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesNo construction neededOther
“1. Means-Plus-Function Terms Challenged claim 26 recites elements using the word “means.” See Ex. 1001, 21:6–22:5. The use of the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies.9 See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process. We must first identify the claimed function. Then, we must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function. Id. at 1351 (citation omitted). The parties do not dispute that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies to those “means” elements recited in claim 26. See Pet. 6–8; see generally Prelim. Resp. a. “system firmware means for detecting loss of lockstep (LOL) for a processor in a multi-processor system” (Claim limitation [26a])” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that these terms “should be construed to include both mismatch errors and errors that may eventually result in mismatch errors constituting a ‘precursor to lockstep mismatch’—including at least one of (1) detecting a lockstep mismatch error; and (2) detecting an error that may eventually cause a lockstep mismatch error.” Pet. 6. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he specification provides detecting these two types of errors as examples of detection of LOL.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:40–3:6, 7:25–36; Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 34–36). Petitioner further asserts that this construction “is consistent with the undisputed construction in the IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958.” Id. (citing BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Foras Techs. Ltd., IPR2023-01373, Paper 18 at 2 (PTAB July 12, 2024)). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position or discuss claim construction in the Preliminary Response. meaning of these claim terms that would affect this Decision. Therefore, we determine that at this stage, we do not need to expressly construe these claim terms to resolve a controversy. 3. Summary and Conclusion For the reasons given, we determine that at this stage, we do not need expressly to construe any claim term for this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803)).” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“alleged invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent, and at least two years of prior work experience with computer architecture design, including fault-tolerant computer architecture design,” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 28–30). At this stage, Patent Owner does not respond to this contention. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’302 patent specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,624,302 - PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01346 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Fox, Safford, and Arai, with or without Landry.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“As can be seen in the discussion above and the analysis of Petitioner’s grounds below, Arai and Landry are significant to Petitioner’s challenges. Because the Office did not previously consider all of the prior art references or combinations of references relied on in the Petition, including Arai and Landry, and because Arai and Landry are not the same or substantially the same as the art that was previously considered, we determine the Office did not previously consider the same or substantially the same prior art as is relied on in the Petition.8 Further, we find that there is not a substantial overlap, if any, between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art, including Arai and Landry, as discussed above. Therefore, part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is not met, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). 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(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Furthermore, we deny Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny institution in this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). We therefore institute inter partes review on all challenged claims and all grounds. See” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Motivation to Combine Fox, Safford, and Arai and Fox, Safford, Landry, and Arai Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill “would have found it obvious to combine Fox’s multiprocessor system with Safford’s lockstep processor and error detection logics and Arai’s processor-switching implementation details.” Pet. 10. Dr. Brogioli testifies that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have been motivated to implement the processors in Fox as lockstep processors to improve reliability and availability of Fox’s server system for critical processes, for which higher reliability and availability of the system are desired.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 90. He further testifies that “[a person or ordinary skill] also would have been motivated to implement in Fox the error detection logics that detect loss of lockstep together with the lockstep processors as taught by Safford to implement lockstep functions and further improve availability of the system.” Id. He testifies that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood how to implement Fox’s processors as lockstep processors with error detection logics and expect success. [A person of ordinary skill] would only have applied well-known configurations and ordinary hardware and software configuration skills.” Id. ¶ 91. Dr. Brogioli provides additional reasons motivating the combination. Id. ¶¶ 92–99. Petitioner contends that “Arai discloses switching the role of a failing processor with a spare processor.” Pet. 10. Dr. Brogioli testifies that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have been motivated to incorporate Arai’s teaching of transferring processor context from the failing processor to the spare processor not to interrupt the operating system and its running applications as desired by Fox.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 109. He reasons that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood that incorporating Arai’s benefit of switching the role of the failing processor to the spare processor without affecting the operating system and running applications, which is expressly taught as desirable by both Fox and Arai and well known in the art.” Id. ¶ 110. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill also would have been motivated to further combine these references with Landry. Pet. 33–35. Dr. Brogioli testifies that “Landry discloses a fault-tolerant boot process that dynamically designates a functional CPU as logical CPU0 that performs the unique functions of a boot processor.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 147. He testifies further that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood Landry’s process would have been a suitable option for selecting a boot processor in Fox’s system consistent with the initialization protocol of the IA-32 multiprocessor system.” Id. He asserts that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood the benefits of implementing Landry’s boot processor selection process in Fox.” Id. ¶ 148. Among other reasons, “[a person of ordinary skill] would have further understood that using the logical CPU0 as the identification for the boot processor allows for transparent replacement of the physical processor experiencing a failure with another processor without interrupting the operating system.” Id. At this stage, Patent Owner does not respond to these arguments by Petitioner or refute the testimony by Dr. Brogioli. On this record, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated a motivation to combine Fox and Safford with Arai and to further combine these references with Landry with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We are not aware of any controversy between the parties over the meaning of these claim terms that would affect this Decision. Therefore, we determine that at this stage, we do not need to expressly construe these claim terms to resolve a controversy.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,627,781 - Ubiquiti Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01290 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“interview to incorporate prosecution dependent claim 2 into prosecution claim 1 and cancel prosecution dependent claim 3. See § I.F, supra. We determine that this agreement and the corresponding amendment constitutes a clear disavowal of subject matter that supports Patent Owner’s construction. Prosecution claim 2 required that the second communication frame follow the first communication frame after a SIFS (corresponding to Figure 5 of the ’122 patent), while prosecution claim 3 required that there be a SIFS and an intervening response between the first and second communication frames (corresponding to the embodiments of Figures 3 and 4 of the ’122 patent). Before the amendment, original claim 1 included both of these embodiments, but the incorporation of prosecution claim 2 into prosecution claim 1 and the cancellation of prosecution claim 3 limited issued claim 1 to only the embodiment of prosecution claim 2. Because Larsson disclosed an intervening response to the first communication frame before the second communication frame, the clear import of the amendment was to limit claim 1 to the embodiment where the second communication frame follows immediately after the SIFS in order to distinguish claim 1 from Larsson. Indeed, in the Reasons for Allowance, the examiner explained that claim 1 distinguishes over the prior art (including Larsson) because “[t]he prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest ‘receiv[ing] the second communication frame after a short inter frame space (SIFS) that follows the first communication frame,’” as added from prosecution claim 2. Ex. 1002, 47. If, as Petitioner argues, prosecution claim 2 was broad enough to cover the embodiment of prosecution claim 3, then the amendment would have served no apparent purpose. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that “[t]here is no other plausible explanation for why, when faced with Larsson’s disclosure of an intervening response, the Examiner initiated an interview to incorporate the SIFS limitation of dependent claim 2 into claim 1, and cancel dependent claim 3, which, like Larsson, included an intervening response.” See Prelim. Sur-reply 1–2.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“of the alleged invention would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in wireless communications standards and/or product development.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–26). Petitioner also states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not advance a proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp.; Prelim. Sur-reply. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’122 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to show that Gu teaches that “the second communication frame follows after a short inter frame space (SIFS) after the first communication frame with the transmit announcement indication.” Ex. 1001, 7:64–67. As discussed above, we construe this limitation to require that “the second communication frame follows substantially immediately after the first communication frame (without any intervening response to the first communication frame),” as Patent Owner proposes. See § II.A, supra. Petitioner has not shown that Gu meets this construction because Gu includes an intervening response between the first and second communication frames. Consequently, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Gu and Trainin.” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2024). 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; see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“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, we do not institute an inter partes review on any grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,594,122 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Wipqtus Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00023 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Chatterjee and Corbridge; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“testimony, we agree with Petitioner that Chatterjee teaches claim 22’s limitation. See Pet. 58–59; Opp. 17, 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121, 178–179; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 68, 94; supra § III.D.4(a). Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chatterjee, Corbridge, and Cook in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra §§ III.D.3(l)(iii), IV.C.4(b)(v).c. Hence, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claim 22 is unpatentable under § 103 because the claim would have been obvious over Chatterjee, Corbridge, and Cook. V. CONCLUSION Based on the evidence presented with the Petition, the evidence introduced during the trial, and the parties’ respective arguments, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5, 7, and 9 in the ’339 patent are unpatentable under § 103 because the claims would have been obvious over Chatterjee and Corbridge.12” slip op. at 165
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“testimony, we agree with Petitioner that Chatterjee teaches claim 22’s limitation. See Pet. 58–59; Opp. 17, 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121, 178–179; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 68, 94; supra § III.D.4(a). Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chatterjee, Corbridge, and Cook in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra §§ III.D.3(l)(iii), IV.C.4(b)(v).c. Hence, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claim 22 is unpatentable under § 103 because the claim would have been obvious over Chatterjee, Corbridge, and Cook.” slip op. at 165
Patent outcomesUS 10,038,339 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,038,339 - Olympus Corporation / Om Digital Solutions Corporation et al. v. Optimum Imaging Technologies, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Feb 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01220 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be shown unpatentable as obvious over Iwasawa.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Petitioner has provided such a stipulation to Patent Owner. Pet. 79 (citing Ex. 1025); see also Ex. 1025, 1 (Petitioner promising that if we institute “an IPR based on the grounds identified [above], then it will (i) not pursue the grounds identified [above] in the respective District Court Case, and (ii) not pursue any other ground that reasonably could have been raised during the IPR . . . in the respective District Court Case.”). In view of Petitioner’s stipulation and the Director’s guidance, we deny Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial due to the related district court cases. See Ex. 1025, 1; Fintiv Memo 3.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Petitioner here is not the same petitioner (Sony) that previously filed a petition in IPR2024-00923. Moreover, the entities that constitute Petitioner contend that they “lack any legally significant relationship” with Sony. Pet. 77. Petitioner further contends that discretionary denial is not warranted under General Plastic factor six because “this Petition raises references not cited to in the Sony IPR.” Id. at 78. Patent Owner does not dispute any of these contentions. Prelim. Resp. 2–3. Because the entities that comprise Petitioner and Sony are neither the same party nor significantly related parties under Valve, and because the entities that comprise Petitioner and Sony have individual rights to defend themselves from allegations of patent infringement by challenging the validity of the ’685 patent here and in district court, we deny Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial due to the petition filed in IPR2024-00923. See Videndum, Paper 12 at 5–6; 35 U.S.C. §§ 282(b)(2), 311, 315.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“and argument presented, we preliminarily find Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with a rational underpinning to modify Iwasawa’s Figure 2 embodiment with elements from Figures 1 and 6. Iwasawa discloses correction data can either be precalculated and stored in ROM or calculated and stored in RAM. Storing pre-calculated correction data for known lenses in ROM would be faster than calculating such data at execution time and storing it in RAM, but calculating the correction data at execution time and storing it in RAM would be useful for performing new corrections for new lenses or updating the corrections for known lenses. Moreover, the combination is one of familiar elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“reasons, we find Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art to be reasonable and commensurate with the problems and solutions disclosed in the prior art. GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt as our own Petitioner’s description of a person skilled in the art.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,873,685 - PTAB · Feb 20, 2025 · IPR2024-01287 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on challenged claims 1–3 and 5–11 based on the asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and declining discretionary denial.
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. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition has met this standard. Further, we decline to discretionarily deny inter partes review. Therefore, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’982 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“(1) whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if the Board institutes a trial; (2) the proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; (3) the investment in the parallel litigation by the court and the parties; (4) the overlap in the issues raised by the petition and the issues in the parallel litigation; (5) whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel litigation are the same party; and (6) other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6. These factors “relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6. Further, Fintiv instructs that the Board should take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id.; see PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 55–56, 58 (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”).10” slip op. at 50
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingPreamble not limitingMixed
“In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quotations omitted) (quoting Pitney Bowes v. Hewlett- Packard Company, 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Id. (citations omitted). “[T]he rule against giving invention-defining effect to intended-use preamble language reflects . . . the ‘well settled’ fundamental principle ‘that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”’ Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). On the current record, we determine that the recitation of “a DOCSIS Provisioning Of EPON (DPOE) system” in the preamble of claim 1 is limiting because it provides the antecedent basis for the term “the DPOE system” in body of claim 1 (e.g., limitation 1a). We, however, have not received specific arguments from the parties as to why the entire preamble of claim 1 would be limiting based on the antecedent basis provided by “a DOCSIS Provisioning Of EPON (DPOE) system.” Further, as discussed above, Patent Owner does not provide any explanation of or support for its assertion that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 serve to define the invention that is claimed and are not simply a description of the prior art. Prelim. Resp. 22. Because we do not need to resolve the issue of whether the entire preamble of claim 1 is limiting to decide whether to institute inter partes review, we will wait for further briefing from the parties before deciding whether the entire preamble of claim 1 is limiting. For claim 6, we determine that the recitation of “a DOCSIS Provisioning Of EPON (DPOE) system” in the preamble is not limiting because it does not provide the antecedent basis for any term in the body of claim 6. As mentioned, limitation 6a recites “a DPoE system,” rather than the DPOE system. Further, as discussed above, Patent Owner does not provide any explanation of or support for its assertion that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 serve to define the invention that is claimed and are not simply a description of the prior art. We do not independently see such support in the record. Thus, for this Decision, we determine that the preamble of claim 6 is not limiting. Patent Owner argues that the preamble of claim 4 is limiting. Prelim. Resp. 23 (“the preamble is limiting in all the independent claims.”). For this Decision, as set forth in Sections III.A.6.a and III.C.3 below, we do not need to determine whether the preamble of claim 4 is limiting in light of Petitioner’s showings. slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the alleged invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or comparable degree or 2–3 years industry experience designing and/or maintaining back-end networking equipment.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner “does not contest Petitioner’s recitation of the level of skill in the art, because even under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill (Pet.[] 11), Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success.” Prelim. Resp. 17. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, as it is consistent with the ’982 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 14
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,287,982 - Charter Communications, Inc. v. Iarnach Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-01286 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–13 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also Intelligent BioSystems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious. slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s proposal reflects an education level and experience that is too low. Prelim. Resp. 37. Therefore, Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar degree plus at least two years of experience in optical networks.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 1:7–10; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 18–24). Patent Owner further contends that “[a] higher level of experience would compensate for a lower education and vice versa.” Id. Although Patent Owner proposes an alternative level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain how it impacts Petitioner’s contentions or Patent Owner’s arguments in opposition. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as consistent with the ’378 patent’s specification and the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, our findings would not change even under Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“There is no dispute between the parties as to this term that would affect our Decision. Therefore, we do not need to explicitly construe it for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“On this record, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown, for purposes of institution, that the combination of references teaches “using the common key to encrypt multicast service data of all different multicast services in a same bearer channel and then sending encrypted data,” as recited in claim 1. To teach this limitation, Petitioner relies on disclosures from RFC 4601 and RFC 11127 purporting to show that communications to a multicast group can be drawn from different sources. Pet. 28–31. As set forth above, Petitioner argues that “[d]ata from . . . different sources constitutes multicast service data of different multicast services.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91). Therefore, Petitioner’s argument 7 We tend to agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reliance on RFC 1112’s disclosure that “[a] host need not be a member of a group to send datagrams to it” does not seem to support that “[a]ny number of sources may direct such IP datagrams to [a] single destination address.” Prelim. Resp. 51–52; Pet. 31; Ex. 1003 ¶ 89. However, there is no dispute that RFC 4601 teaches that communications to a multicast group can be drawn from different sources. See Pet. 31; Prelim. Resp. 51. presumes that by showing that RFC 4601 and RFC 1112 teaches multicast communications from different sources, Petitioner has also shown that the multicast communications are from different multicast services. We disagree.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,942,378 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01274 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable: claim 3 as obvious over Clark, Manner, and Santoro; claim 4 as obvious over Clark and Manner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“We have considered the parties’ respective arguments concerning the construction of this claim term and, for the following reasons, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “compartment” as “an enclosed space for containing an item.” First, Petitioner does not dispute that it agreed to adopt Patent Owner’s construction in the district court proceeding between the parties. Pet. Reply 5; Tr. 8:14–21. Second, Petitioner cites to several Board Decisions in which the panels construed claim terms even though the parties agreed to constructions in parallel litigation and argues that the agreement between Petitioner and Patent Owner in the parallel district court proceeding has no bearing on this proceeding. Id. (citing Cook Grp. Inc. v. Cook Med. LLC, IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7–8 (PTAB May 16, 2017); Arris Int’l PLC v. Sony Corp., IPR2016-00834, Paper 54 at 26–29 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2017); Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18–19 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2016)). But, those cited decisions are not precedential and two of them were decided under the “broadest reasonable interpretation standard,” not the Phillips standard, thereby rendering a stipulation between the parties in district court less informative to the panels’ determinations. See Apple, IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18; Cook Grp., IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7. More importantly, given Petitioner’s agreement with Patent Owner’s construction in the district court, we see no reason to apply a different construction here simply because Petitioner proposed that construction prior to agreeing to the construction with Patent Owner in district court. Tr. 11:21–25.8” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act as his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“For the following reasons, we determine that the portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent relied on by Patent Owner do not “prov[e] the existence of a ‘clear and unmistakable’ disclaimer that would have been evident to one skilled in the art.” Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1063– 64.14 Patent Owner argues that the prosecution history redefined the term forward “by disclaiming workstations that are mounted on top of or over the height adjustment mechanism.” PO Resp. 29. Claims 3 and 4 recite “a work platform including a work surface and compartments for containing items” not a “workstation.” It is unclear what Patent Owner is referring to as the “workstation,” i.e., the recited “work platform,” the recited “work surface,” or the combination of “work platform,” “work surface,” and the recited “compartments.” Patent Owner injects further ambiguity by rephrasing the disclaimer, as “Applicant explicitly disclaimed carts having work stations mounted entirely to the top of the height adjustment mechanism (e.g., carts like Clark and Reeder).” Id. at 30 (emphasis added). Regardless of these 14 Because of our determination that the requirements for a clear and unmistakable disclaimer are not met by the cited portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent, we need not and do not reach the question of relevance of the statements in the prosecution of the ’650 patent to the claims of the ’668 patent. ambiguities, Patent Owner misinterprets the statements in the prosecution history. The applicant’s primary argument was that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have incorporated moveable work surfaces above the “compartment” of Clark. Ex. 1033, 137–38. The applicant’s arguments, thus, do not support Patent Owner’s argument here that “workstations” should not be mounted “over or on top of the height adjustment mechanism.” See id.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,668 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,594,668
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.