- Dropbox, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jul 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00287 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 9–16 and 22–24, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 9, 10, 14, and 15 are obvious over Riepling and Meisels, and claims 11–13, 16, and 22–24 over Riepling, Manzano, …
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 any Preliminary Response shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims and grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 3–4 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not 8 No evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness is of record concerning the challenged claims. dispute Petitioner’s definition for purposes of its preliminary response. Prelim. Resp. 22. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that this combination would have been motivated because (i) Riepling and Meisels are from the same field of endeavor, directed to sharing files over a network; (ii) that the combination would have yielded expected, predictable results, using known and routine computer programming principles, to modify Riepling’s system to generate an electronic message that includes a link pointing to an uploaded file; (iii) that the combination would have been readily implemented given Meisels’ teachings of inserting, in an electronic message, a link to a shared location where a file is uploaded; (iv) and that the combination was suggested because Meisels expressly disclosed a benefit of sending an email message with a link, to avoid multiple copies of a file from existing at multiple locations, and sending links to one file to multiple recipients and managing permissions on an individual recipient basis. Pet. 67–70 (citing Ex. 1107, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 2, 4, 19; Ex. 1108, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 1, 3, 41–45, 56; Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 194–198). In addition, for reasons similar to the motivation basis, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Id. at 70–71 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 199–200). Patent Owner does not specifically address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the combination of Riepling and Meisels. See Prelim. Resp. 38. At this stage, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have applied the document link teachings of Meisels to modify Riepling. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Riepling and Meisels.” slip op. at 23
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not specifically address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the combination of Riepling and Meisels. See Prelim. Resp. 38. At this stage, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have applied the document link teachings of Meisels to modify Riepling. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Riepling and Meisels.” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00286 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 17–21 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Houston and Garcia render at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Thus, Patent Owner has shown that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Turning to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. As Petitioner argues, there is no evidence that the references in question were meaningfully addressed during the prosecution of the ’520 patent — there was no evaluation of the art or articulation regarding any arguments applying that art. Pet. 11. We note that the IPR petitions were submitted only after the prosecution came to a purported end with an Issue Notification — submission of the petitions briefly postponed issuance, but resulted in no further substantive actions other than a later issuance.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Accordingly, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s specific arguments directed to claim requirement 17[e], and its arguments discussed above generally relating to all of Petitioner’s grounds, for the reasons discussed above, for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded that the record sufficiently supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim requirements 17[e] and 17[f]. d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 17 Based on our analysis set forth above, including our analysis of Patent Owner’s arguments regarding secondary considerations of nonobviousness, we determine, on the current record and for purposes of this Decision, that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Houston and Garcia.” slip op. at 45
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest claimed priority date of the ’520 patent (September 22, 2012): would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field and two or more years of experience in a related field such as networked computer systems using Internet protocols. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3–4 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not pertinent to Petitioner’s proffered combination of Houston with Garcia as applied to the remaining challenged claims 17–21. As discussed further below, Petitioner relies on Garcia as supplementing Houston for details regarding the requirements of generating and sending an email with a link to a folder but without a file attachment, and for synchronizing folders and providing interfaces for display of shared folders. Pet. 26–27, 36–39, 57–60. For the challenged claims, Petitioner does not rely on the combination to modify Houston’s system such that, when an icon for a shared folder is created in Houston’s interface at an invited user’s client, the client does not store a file in the shared folder — that aspect of the Houston/Garcia combination is only relevant to claims 1–8, which have been disclaimed. Pet. 40–41; Ex. 2045. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument, that Houston teaches away from combining with Garcia to delay storing a file when a folder is shared, is not applicable to Petitioner’s challenges of claim 17–21. The fact that the Houston system ensures the availability of synchronized local copies of files at each user and criticizes systems that store documents remotely, such as in Garcia, is irrelevant to those claims. On this record, nothing about that particular difference in the approaches of Houston and Garcia would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from adopting Houston to take advantage of the teachings in Garcia regarding use of email and folder interfaces. In sum, Patent Owner focuses on a specific irrelevant detail of Houston regarding local storage of files, whereas Petitioner relies on other features of the combination of Houston and Garcia. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). At this stage, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the email and folder interface teachings of Garcia to modify Houston. Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 84–93, 102–104, 148, 151–152. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Houston and Garcia.” slip op. at 35
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520 - Magic Leap, Inc. v. Percept Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00494 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8, 11, 17, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Mann ’895 and Pemer.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Now, after institution, Patent Owner does not challenge the Petition’s formulation of ordinary skill, or address the level of ordinary skill at all. See PO Resp. generally. Accordingly, we maintain our determination in the Institution Decision that Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill is supported persuasively by the testimony of Dr. LaViola, and is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’929 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply Petitioner’s formulation in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1006 ¶ 32 (emphasis added). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if the eye is not “alive” (id. ¶ 27) then the eye will remain “stationary” (id. ¶ 32) as Pemer operates its light sources 112 and 114, so the eye will “not appear in the difference image” (id.) at all. Patent Owner’s counsel agreed with these findings, and characterized the resulting difference image of an eye that is not alive as a “null pattern” or a “null image.” Tr. 24:9–24, 28:15–24, 33:16–34:5. Patent Owner’s counsel argued that such a null difference image may be used to authorize a user in Pemer. That is, counsel argued that when Pemer determines “the eyes are dead,” Pemer “still does the comparison with the database” and “if there’s a match, you know, like a null pattern, I guess, produced from the dead eye . . . it’s still granted the sight license [i.e., user authorization].” Tr. 24:17–24, 33:16–34:8. In particular, according to counsel, Pemer’s two light sources 112 and 14 cause “reflective [sic ‘reflexive’]” eye movement6 if the eye is alive, such that an unlicensed user “can’t fake the null pattern from a dead eye, so it still works.” Id. at 24:24–25:6. Similarly, when asked “how is Pemer then going to use the null image to authenticate the person?”, counsel responded that “the null image would be unique to that [authorized] user” and a “thief can’t do anything to prevent his or her eye from moving” in response to Pemer’s lights sources, so the thief “wouldn’t get a null comparison image to authenticate against” such that “the null pattern would still be unique to a wearer with a dead eye.” Id. at 28:17–29:15. Patent Owner’s counsel’s foregoing argument is not supported by Pemer. The Pemer disclosures cited by counsel state only that Pemer “indicates whether the eye (E) is alive” based on a null image resulting from lack of eye movement. Ex. 1006 ¶ 27 (emphasis added). Pemer does not disclose or suggest that a null image is used to authenticate a user. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26, 27, 30, 35 (cited at PO Sur-reply 13–14). Indeed, in a disclosure not cited by Patent Owner, Pemer states its “iris feature detector . . . can be used in identification and authentication systems” including “identification systems that only respond to a live eye.”” slip op. at 37
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededMixed
“between eye movement and activation of circuitry, however, they do so in a permissive rather than a limiting fashion. That is, such a relationship is described as an “example” that “could be used” in “a preferred embodiment,” rather than a definitional or otherwise limiting description of the claim term “responsive to.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 8 (“[T]he patentee did not provide the term any other or exceptional meaning in the specification of the ’929 patent.”); Tr. 25:21–26:9 (Patent Owner’s counsel admitting it would be “improper” to cite the ’929 patent specification as “limit[ing] the claim”). We discern nothing in these disclosures that would limit the claimed response to require a cause and effect relationship. We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the specification into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“particular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be used to limit claim language that has broader effect”); In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.”).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We conclude Petitioner’s asserted motivations for combining Mann ’895 and Pemer to practice the invention of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In particular, as discussed above in Section III.F.4(i), the eyewear of Mann ’895 includes an iris scanner for activating circuitry in order to implement Mann’s sight license feature. Pemer, as discussed above in Section III.F.4(ii), discloses an iris scanner that authorizes a user responsive to eye motion of the user. We determine a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to combine these disclosures such that the eyewear of Mann ’895 employs an iris scanner that activates the eyewear circuitry responsive to eye motion of user, for the reasons asserted by Petitioner as summarized above in this Section which we adopt as our own. For example, we determine now, as we did in the Institution Decision, that a person of ordinary skill in the art desiring to use the eyewear of Mann ’895 would understand that “an iris scanner” was one option for implementing Mann’s sight license feature, yet Mann ’895 does not provide any details concerning the structure or operation of this iris scanner. Ex. 1005, 11:21–25; see Inst. Dec. 26. It makes sense, therefore, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to other references to provide such implementation details, and would have concluded Pemer’s iris scanner was a good option, because it would provide the computational advantages described in Pemer and cited by Petitioner. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4–5, 25; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–58.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 9,010,929 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,010,929 - Magic Leap, Inc. v. Percept Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00495 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 12–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Osterhout and, independently, over Mann ’526 and Vaissie.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have had a B.S. degree and a Masters degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Physics, or an equivalent field, as well as one to two years of academic or industry experience in wearable electronic devices or comparable industry experience. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Although the level of skill in the art was addressed in the Preliminary Response and the Decision on Institution (see Prelim. Resp. 27–30; Dec. on Inst. 6–10), Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“For all of the foregoing reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed ordinary and customary meaning for “a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in communication with the lens” because it is not supported by the claim language or the ’113 Patent Specification, and is supported only by unsworn attorney argument. Patent Owner further asserts that the Board should provide a construction for “a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in communication with the lens of the wearable optics” in order to resolve the controversy. See PO Resp. 8; PO Sur-reply 2–3; see also PO Sur-reply 2 (“Simply stating how the claims should be understood without then deciding what that understand[ing] is, is legal error,” citing O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). We do not agree with Patent Owner that a construction for the ordinary and customary meaning of “a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in to construe ‘those terms . . . that are in controversy. . . only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375. As demonstrated in the analysis that follows in Sections II.D. and II.E., Patent Owner asserts that neither Osterhout nor the combination of Mann ’526 and Vaissie teaches or suggests “a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in communication with the lens” based only on Patent Owner’s proposed ordinary and customary meaning. Patent Owner does not challenge the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing as to this limitation based on any other construction. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. Thus, we are able to resolve the patentability controversies presented in this proceeding (that is, whether the challenged claims would have been obvious over Osterhout and over Mann ’526 and Vaissie) without construing the plain and ordinary meaning of “in communication with” apart from rejecting Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Having considered both parties’ arguments and the evidence cited by the parties to support their respective arguments, we are persuaded that “a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in communication with the lens” is disclosed or taught by Osterhout. Based on the entire record, we determine Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that Osterhout discloses or teaches the preamble recitation, and the limitations of “a lens; and a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in communication with the lens.” See Pet. 19–20.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Mann ’526 with the teachings of Vaissie because Vaissie explains that implementing eye tracking in head-mounted devices can advantageously allow physically challenged people to interact with such devices and to realize the advantages of enhancing local images, correcting depth perception difficulties, and increasing resolution of visual displays. See Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 148–150; Ex. 1006, 24:66– 25:31, Fig. 10; Ex. 1007, 1:40–53, 1:56–58). Patent Owner does not address or rebut Petitioner’s rationale to combine the teachings of Mann ’526 and Mann ’526, Vaissie, and Dr. LaViola’s testimony (Ex. 1003), we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Mann ’526 with Vaissie’s teachings of optical parameter measurements. See Pet. 56–59; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Having considered both parties’ arguments and the evidence cited by the parties to support their respective arguments, we are persuaded that this limitation is taught by the combination of Mann ’526 and Vaissie. Based on the entire record, we determine Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Mann ’526 and Vaissie teaches this limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 56–59.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 8,696,113 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,696,113 - Jeisys Medical Inc. v. Serendia, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00386 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–29, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 are unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“D. Analysis The Director’s recent Videndum decision provides that where no “significant relationship [exists] under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” See Videndum, Paper 12 at 6. Moreover, the Director’s decision in Ford clarified that “court-ordered” coordination alone between parties having different accused products does not establish a significant relationship absent “other relevant or extenuating facts or circumstances” that might evidence a significant relationship, such as “interactions or agreements regarding the implementation of the accused [technology] into their respective accused products.” Ford, Paper 28 at 10–11. We do not find a significant relationship exists between the prior and current petitioners so as to warrant discretionary denial under General Plastic. First, like the parties in Ford, the prior and current petitioners are competitors selling different products, and there is no evidence of agreements regarding the implementation of the claimed technology into their respective accused products. See Ford, Paper 28 at 10; cf. Valve, Paper 11 at 10 (“Valve represented that ‘HTC’s VIVE devices incorporate certain Valve technologies under a technology license from Valve,’ and that ‘Valve employees did provide HTC with technical assistance during the development of the accused VIVE devices.’”). Second, and also like in Ford, the “Ground Rules” for the ITC Investigation required that “[p]arties with similar interests should coordinate and consolidate motion practice to the extent practicable” (Ex. 1041 § 2) and “must coordinate and consolidate depositions and all other discovery” (id. § 3.1). Indeed, we understand that all fourteen co-respondents in the ITC Investigation submitted the joint expert report of Dr. Jean Woloszko. See Ex. 2004, 1; see also Ford, Paper 28 at 3. Third, we do not find the current Petitioner’s mere knowledge of litigation—either in the ITC or district court—against competitors in RF microneedling to establish a significant relationship with those competitors. Cf. Ford, Paper 17 at 3 (noting that where the patent at issue had been asserted against multiple competitors regarding their respective accused products, “merely engag[ing] in court-ordered pretrial coordination” is by itself insufficient to establish a “significant relationship” between the parties). Fourth, we do not find the current Petitioner to have engaged in improper gamesmanship through “tactical delay.” As Petitioner explains, the Prior Petition was filed in response to a district court action filed by Patent Owner against the prior petitioners, but not Petitioner, while the current Petition was filed in response to an ITC Investigation initiated after the denial of the Prior Petition. Patent Owner’s remaining arguments are directed to other factors in the General Plastic analysis and do not evidence a significant relationship between the prior and current Petitioners. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under General Plastic.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims of the ’836 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–29 of the ’836 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“IV. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSITA”) would have had (1) 7–10 years of experience with developing and/or using treatment systems for delivery of electromagnetic radiation energy to skin or other tissues, and (2) a related graduate engineering degree or M.D. and may have worked as part of a multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but also would have taken advantage of certain specialized skills of others on the team when solving a technical problem. Ex. 1028, 14–15; see also Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, 15; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50, 51); see also Prelim. Resp. 29. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the parties’ assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is consistent with the prior art of record and the ’836 patent.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner expressly construe any term. See Pet. 9; see also Prelim. Resp. 30. For purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not formally construe any claim term. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,480,836 - LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00319 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5, 15, and 25 were not shown unpatentable because Barsoum supports their priority date, and neither Barsoum nor ATSC327 qualifies as prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why claim 5 requires this type of optimization, or why this would be required in order for Barsoum to provide written description support for the claim. Claim 5 does not expressly require optimization of phase considerations and Petitioner does not argue for a claim construction that would include such a requirement.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(3) Conclusion – Written Description In view of the above, we find that either disclosure in Barsoum identified by Patent Owner satisfies the written description requirement. 2. 35 U.S.C. § 103 As noted previously, Petitioner argues that dependent claims 5, 15, and 25 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327. Pet. 67–79. Having determined the Barsoum provides written description support for claims 5, 15, and 25, Barsoum cannot be prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as asserted by Petitioner. Pet. 2; 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (requiring that “the claimed invention was patented . . . before the effective filing date of the claimed invention). Furthermore, having determined that the ’700 patent is entitled to an effective filing date of Barsoum ’777, which is June 5, 2008, the asserted March 2019 date of ATSC327 does not qualify it as prior art to the ’700 patent. Thus, the Petition does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5, 15, and 25 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327.” slip op. at 22
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“1 Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23, though challenged by Petitioner, were disclaimed by Patent Owner after trial was instituted. Ex. 2024. 2 The Petitioner Sur-reply was authorized in view of our authorization for Patent Owner to file declarant testimony with the Patent Owner Sur-reply.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’700 patent and prior art of record. We also find that Dr. Caire’s statement of a “Ph.D.,” “and possibly some years of work after Ph.D.” is consistent with Petitioner’s statement that the level of skill includes “[s]uperior education” to “compensate for a deficiency in work experience.” The complexity of the evidence of record emphasizes the importance of “at least two years of experience . . . including the use of constellations in transmitting signals between devices” or “[s]uperior education” in the same area. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill as discussed above.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,693,700 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,693,700 - 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 - PTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00063 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Prikowitsch or Sar-Shalom.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“16–23; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (holding that PTAB has discretion to deny institution in certain circumstances where there are parallel district court proceedings). Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue as to the challenged claims any ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR” (Ex. 1055, 2), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv. As to Patent Owner’s allegation that Petitioner should not be able to file a stipulation after the Preliminary Response (Prelim. Resp. 22–23), we determine that Petitioner’s filing of its Sotera stipulation at the time it did is proper. NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc., IPR2021-01556, Paper 13 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2022) (precedential) (holding the Board may only consider stipulations offered before a decision on institution).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Having reviewed the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ’227 patent is unpatentable over Prikowitsch.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In summary, we determine that adoption of either party’s proposed construction does not provide a meaningful difference at this time; both appear to cover the same idea. Indeed, given that the claims already state that the call completion application detects an incomplete call, receives a call completion action, and triggers execution of the call completion action, we see no reason to construe “call completion application” to require anything beyond what is already in the claims. On this record, we see no support in the claims or specification to hold that a “call completion application” can be read as operating without reliance on a network in some way.2 Instead, after the call completion application becomes aware of an incomplete call, the application receives a choice from a user and triggers execution of that choice, and in accordance with the ’227 patent 2 To the extent Patent Owner’s proposed construction is seeking to preclude a network in the performance of the call completion application, then we would not agree with that construction. The call completion application is always dependent on the infrastructure of a communication network; as should be clear from our analysis above, the ’227 patent is focused on independence from the call completion services provided by the called party’s network. Notwithstanding the choice of call completion action being independent of the call completion services provided by the called party’s network, the call completion action still must rely on the network to provide the infrastructure to carry out certain actions. specification, it is that choice that is not premised on a limitation imposed by the called party’s network. Ex. 1001, 1:54–62 (“a system that complete[s] an incomplete call . . . independent of a preconfigured call completion service on the called party’s network”) (emphasis added), 2:39–43 (“the system . . . enables transmission of a voice message by a calling party to a called party when a network component or a called party device is not configured to offer a call completion option to the calling party to leave a voice message”). We do not explicitly provide a claim construction of any claim limitation in this Decision at this time because the issue of whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood can be resolved without explicitly construing the claim. 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)). However, our analysis places the parties on notice of the potential scope of the claims.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art: would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and two-three years of experience with multimedia and Internet-related communications technologies, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 7. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill at this time. Prelim. Resp. 4. We adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision, which appears consistent with the level of disclosure provided in the ’227 patent and the prior art cited.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,185,227
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.