- Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 31, 2024 · IPR2022-01094 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3–12 and 15–18 are unpatentable: claims 3–4, 6–11, 15–16, and 18 as obvious over Sanford and Hsu; claims 5, 12, and 17 under their respective additional-reference grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’039 patent “would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in the field of security and access-control.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 26). IPR2022-00600, which is that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’039 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of human-machine interfaces and device access security. Additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements. PO Resp. 6–7; see also IPR2022-00600, Paper 22 at 12 (PTAB October 13, 2023) (Final Written Decision). In this proceeding, Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s levels of ordinary skill in the art, in particular education, are not substantively different. Petitioner’s proposal requires at least two years of experience in the field of security and access control, compared to one year as proposed by Patent Owner. We maintain our determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art from IPR2022-00600, including at least one year of experience as Patent Owner urges. On this record, Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’039 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. Indeed, the difference between one and two years of experience in the field is fairly minimal considering that neither party asserts that it is necessary to have a significant amount of experience, e.g., 5–10 years in the field. For consistency, we rely on the same level of ordinary skill in the art that we determined in IPR2022-00600.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“construction with respect to the phrase “memory location defined by the provided card information” and limitation 3[D](1) as a whole, we maintain the claim construction given in IPR2022-00600 for the reasons provided here and in the Final Written Decision in that proceeding. IPR2022-00600, Paper 22, 29–36. We understand that, during an enrollment process, the claimed “biometric signature,” e.g., a fingerprint, is not yet stored in the memory, and no memory location or address has been “defined,” as in “set” or “established,” in the memory for storing the fingerprint, until card information is received. Once the card information and fingerprint are received during enrollment, the card information provides data that establishes where, i.e., at what memory location or address, the system will store the fingerprint data. The memory location or address where the fingerprint data is stored is, therefore, “contingent” on the card information, as Patent Owner’s construction requires.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Because at least Hsu, Sanford, and Tsukamura each discloses an enrollment process, in this case we need not explicitly determine whether the language from which Patent Owner argues infers “enrollment” in claim 3 is limiting. We can agree that from reading the ’039 patent in context there is As we explained in our Institution Decision the enrollment process includes step 401, which stores the biometric signature “at a memory address defined by the card data 604,” whereas in verification process 205 “step 204 reads the contents stored at a single memory address defined by the card data 604” and compares the stored biometric signature with the input biometric signature. Inst. Dec. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:65–66, 8:24–26). The language of the independent claims and the requirement that where the card information has not been previously provided, “storing the inputted biometric signature,” tracks with the specification description of an enrollment phase. See Ex. 1001, 9:63–65 (“The [enrollment] process 207 is entered from the step 206 in FIG. 5, after which a step 401 stores the biometric signature received by the step 203 in the memory 124.”). Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we will consider the limitations of claims 3, 15, and 18 to include, at least in part, an enrollment process. However, because the terms “enrolling” or “enrollment” do not create any particular dispute between the parties that we need to resolve, we need not determine whether they are, in fact limitations.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“4. Means-plus-function terms In our Institution Decision we accepted Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the several “means for” and “code for” limitations recited in claims 15 and 18. See Inst. Dec. 42 (The Board explaining that “we find Petitioner’s proposed constructions of these term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) consistent with the record in this case.”). These constructions are also consistent with the District Court proceeding. Inst. Dec. 39–43; see also Ex. 1012, 1–4. Patent Owner does not address the means-plus-function terms in the challenged claims. Because patentability on the claims at issue in this case does not turn on construction of the relative structures and functions of these means-plusfunction terms, and because they are not in dispute, we maintain the constructions from our Institution Decision including that “code for” is an equivalent recitation for “means for.” Inst. Dec. 39–43.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,620,039 - Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 31, 2024 · IPR2022-01093 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Hsu and Sanford; the Board did not reach the Hsu, Sanford, and Tsukamura ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“In AIT, the Federal Circuit explained that the “Board’s determination that Salesforce was not a real party in interest under § 315(b) relied on an impermissibly narrow understanding of the common-law meaning of the term.” Id. at 1357. For one thing, the Court pointed out that “an agent with an ownership interest in the subject matter of the suit, or one who is the trustee of an express trust or a party in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another, may qualify as a real party in interest.” Id. In this proceeding, Patent Owner has failed to point to any persuasive evidence, apart from software compatibility with Apple’s iOS platforms as discussed in the Agreement, that Apple has any overt interest, influence, development or design influence over Petitioner’s “Yale Smart Locks” products or App. In addition, Patent Owner has produced no evidence that Apple holds any ownership interest, assets, or expressly administers any property rights as a trustee or agent for the benefit of Petitioner indicative of real party in interest relationships under common law.” slip op. at 48
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In this proceeding, Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s levels of ordinary skill in the art, in particular education, are not substantively different. Petitioner’s proposal requires at least two years of experience in the field of security and access control, compared to one year in Patent Owner’s case. We maintain our determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art from IPR2022-00600 including at least one year of experience as Patent Owner urges. On this record, Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’039 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. Indeed, the difference between one and two years of experience in the field is fairly minimal considering that neither party asserts that it is necessary to have a significant amount of experience, ordinary skill in the art that we determined in IPR2022-00600.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“1. “A method of enrolling” Patent Owner argues that the independent claims are specifically directed to an enrollment process, e.g., “[a] method of enrolling,” recited in the preamble of claim 1, and that the preamble should be considered limiting. PO Resp. 6. Patent Owner argues that “the ‘method of enrolling’ in the preamble of Claim 1 provides antecedent basis for ‘the enrolment method’ in the body of dependent Claim 2.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 12:29– 42). Petitioner disagrees, arguing that “a ‘method of enrolling’ is nothing more than a nonlimiting intended use.” Pet. Reply 13. Petitioner also asserts that this term is “not critical to the issues in dispute” and “[e]ven if the phrase is limiting, Hsu, Sanford, and Tsukamura each disclose an enrollment process.” Id. at 14 (citing Pet. 20, 36–37, 78). disclose an enrollment process and Patent Owner does not expressly dispute that they do, in this case we need not explicitly determine whether the term is limiting. We can agree that “[a] method of enrollment” provides antecedent basis for at least dependent claim 2 and that the preamble provides context to the recited method step limitations in the body of independent claim 1. See Ex. 1001 12: 41–42 (dependent claim 2 referring “to the enrollment method of claim 1”). Apart from considering the limitations of claim 1 within the context of an enrollment process, because the term does not create any particular dispute between the parties that we need to resolve, we need not determine whether it is limiting.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Consistent with our prior decision in IPR2022-00600, we determine, also in this proceeding, that Patent Owner’s construction is sufficiently accurate. See Apple, Inc. v. CPC Patent Technologies, Ltd., IPR2022- 00600, Paper 22, 29–39 (Final Written Decision); see also NTP Inc., v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that, when construing claims in patents that derive from the same parent application and share common terms, “we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents”). In IPR2033-00600, we explained that [c]onsidering the abstract and the specification of the ’039 patent, what “defining, dependent upon . . .” means as a whole, in the context of claim 1 and “a method of enrolling,” is that during an enrollment process, the claimed “biometric signature,” e.g., a fingerprint, is not yet stored in the memory and no memory location or address has been “set” or “established” for the fingerprint. When the fingerprint, and then the card, is provided to the system during enrollment, the card information provides data that establishes where, e.g., at what memory location or address, the system will store the fingerprint data.8 IPR2022-00600, Paper 22, 30. We also explained that “[i]mportantly . . . we do not understand that ‘defining . . . a memory location,’ or Patent Owner’s alternative wording, ‘establishing’ or ‘setting,’ means ‘[creating] . . . a memory location in a local memory.’” Id. at 32. We explained further that” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,620,039 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00949 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 11–20 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kim anticipates or renders obvious at least claims 11, 14, 16, and 19.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Our Trial Practice Guide explains that, as is the case here, for parallel petitions challenging the same patent “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CTPG 59. The CTPG also recognizes “that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” Id. The CTPG provides some exemplary reasons for multiple petitions, for instance “when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. The CTPG further compels a petitioner filing multiple petitions to identify: (1) a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits, if the Board uses its explanation of the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id. at 60. We focus our analysis on part (2) and “why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions.” Id.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, at this stage in the proceeding, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. (“[W]e need only construe 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))). Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner indicate that any claim terms require construction. See generally, Petition; Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision where no claim terms are in dispute we need not explicitly construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’619 patent would have been a person with a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies, a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, and training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring technologies. Pet. 8 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–38). Petitioner also asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not expressly address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’619 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,866,619 - Wellmatics, LLC / GR Energy Services Management, LP et al. v. Canatex Completions Solutions, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01149 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner “does not dispute” these qualifications. Prelim. Resp. 10. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’122 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the example of “a fluid line that provides gas or liquid to expansion chamber 38 from [the] surface” in the specification, does not require that a fluid line be a source of fluid pressure. We further agree that Petitioner’s analysis ignores the fact that this example makes clear that the source of fluid pressure is at the surface. Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 66–67). Both Patent Owner and Petitioner agree that “source” should be construed in accordance with its ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 13, 18; Pet. 18–19 (Patent Owner has not “identified any clear definition or clear and unambiguous disclaimer that would justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the claim language.”). ordinary meaning of “source.”2 See Prelim. Resp. 13–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:55–65, 4:5–12, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 52–63, Ex. 2003, 7, 8, Ex. 2004, 5, Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 29–30, Fig. 1, Ex. 2006, 4:64–5:9, Fig. 1, Ex. 2007, 13:23–35, Ex. 2009, Abstr., 3:54–60, Ex. 2010. Patent Owner provides dictionary and declaratory evidence that the ordinary meaning of “source” is ‘“origin’— i.e., the place from which something originates.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 52, Ex. 2003, 7, 8, Ex. 2004, 5). Patent Owner provides further evidence and explanation as to why that definition is consistent with the usage of “source of fluid pressure” in the ’122 patent. Id. at 13–15 (citing e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:55–65, 4:5–12). Patent Owner provides further evidence of how the term “source” is used in other patents and documents “in the oil and gas industry” that is consistent with its definition. Id. at 15–18 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 57–63, Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 29–30, Fig. 1, Ex. 2006, 4:64–5:9, Fig. 1, Ex. 2007, 13:23–35, Ex. 2009, Abstr., 3:54–60, Ex. 2010). Thus, based on the current record, we construe “source of fluid pressure” to mean the place from which the fluid pressure originates.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“As noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner’s declarant merely asserts that Bebak’s hydraulic pump would have been considered part of the second part of a releasable connection, and thus it is entitled to little weight. Prelim. Resp. 28; see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper No. 9 at 15 (Aug 24, 2022) (precedential) (“Dr. Jones does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statement. Thus, the cited declaration testimony is conclusory and unsupported, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight.”) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). For all of the above reasons, we determine that the Petition does not provide a reasonable basis to determine that Bebak teaches “a second part [of the releasable connection] comprising: . . . a source of fluid pressure,” as required by independent claims 1 and 13.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,794,122 - Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01089 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner did not prove claims 1–13 unpatentable because the cited references did not disclose or suggest limitations D(1), D(2), and D(3).
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“D. Conclusion Concerning Section 315(b) The totality of the evidence before us does not establish anything other than a traditional business relationship between Petitioner, who manufactures locks and similar security products that interface with smartphones, and Apple, who sells a smartphone. There is a sharing of confidential information between these parties. This common form of conducting business, without more, does not establish a relationship sufficient to make Apple a real party-in-interest or a privy of Petitioner in this inter partes review. There is no persuasive evidence that Apple has any control or substantive involvement over the Petition or over Petitioner’s role in this proceeding. There is no persuasive evidence of joint funding. There is no persuasive evidence of direct or implied coordination between Apple and Petitioner as to their respective decisions to bring these proceedings. There is no persuasive evidence that Apple was a “litigating agent” for Petitioner.29 Under these circumstances, a finding that Apple is a privy of Petitioner “would be improper.” See Uniloc 2017, 989 F.3d at 1029; see also Google LLC v. DDC Technology, LLC, IPR2023-00708, Paper 29 at 21–37 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2023) (determining that the mere existence of some business relationship was not sufficient to establish an RPI or privy status between the parties). Accordingly, based on the totality of the evidence of record and our” slip op. at 49
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“(‘POSITA’) at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in the field of security and access-control.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 26). Mr. Lipoff’s cited testimony merely repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill, preceded by the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. Mr. Lipoff does not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. §42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (August 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 54
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“(‘POSITA’) at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in the field of security and access-control.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 26). Mr. Lipoff’s cited testimony merely repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill, preceded by the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. Mr. Lipoff does not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. §42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (August 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 54
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“biometric signal.” Accordingly, we determine that we need to construe specifically the term “biometric signal” in this proceeding. slip op. at 60
Patent outcomesUS 9,269,208 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,269,208 - Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01045 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to show claims 1–13 unpatentable because the cited references did not disclose or suggest limitations D(1), D(2), and D(3).
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“D. Conclusion Concerning Section 315(b) The totality of the evidence before us does not establish anything other than a traditional business relationship between Petitioner, who manufactures locks and similar security products that interface with smartphones, and Apple, who sells a smartphone. There is a sharing of confidential information between these parties. This common form of conducting business, without more, does not establish a relationship sufficient to make Apple a real party-in-interest or a privy of Petitioner in this inter partes review. There is no persuasive evidence that Apple has any control or substantive involvement over the Petition or over Petitioner’s role in this proceeding. There is no persuasive evidence of joint funding. There is no persuasive evidence of direct or implied coordination between Apple and Petitioner as to their respective decisions to bring these proceedings. There is no persuasive evidence that Apple was a “litigating agent” for Petitioner.29 Under these circumstances, a finding that Apple is a privy of Petitioner “would be improper.” See Uniloc 2017, 989 F.3d at 1029; see also Google LLC v. DDC Technology, LLC, IPR2023-00708, Paper 29 at 21–37 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2023) (determining that the mere existence of some business relationship was not sufficient to establish an RPI or privy status between the parties). Accordingly, based on the totality of the evidence of record and our” slip op. at 49
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“4. Conclusion on RPI Considering the totality of the evidence and the controlling legal authority discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden in establishing that Apple is not a real party-in-interest. We recognize that “a nonparty to an IPR can be a real party in interest even without entering into an express or implied agreement with the petitioner to file an IPR petition.” AIT, 897 F.3d at 1354. In RPX, decided on remand from the Federal Circuit in AIT, “the evidence strongly suggest[ed]” that RPX was representing Salesforce’s interests in filing the IPR proceedings at issue in that case. RPX, IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 at 31. There is no such strong evidence in the proceeding before us. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. See, e.g., Ex. 1022 (Petitioner’s Interrogatory Responses). “Most critically,” in RPX, “Salesforce paid RPX to reduce Salesforce’s patent litigation exposure, and RPX filed the [ ] IPRs despite having no apparent risk of infringement liability itself.” RPX, IPR2015- 01750, Paper 128 at 31. Again, the evidence in RPX is significantly different from the evidence in the proceeding before us, where Petitioner was sufficiently threatened with infringement by Patent Owner to create jurisdiction for Petitioner’s Declaratory Judgment complaint against Patent Owner to establish that Petitioner did not infringe the ’208 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 120–128 (Petitioner’s Declaratory Judgment complaint seeking in Count II “a declaration that each entity [comprising Petitioner] does not infringe any claim of the ’208 Patent.”). The Declaratory Judgment complaint was filed on May 23, 2022 (see Ex, 2007 stating “Filed 05/23/22”). The Petition in this IPR proceeding was filed on June 3, 2022 (see Paper 5). The perceived benefits of challenging patentability in an inter partes review rather than challenging validity in a district court are well-known. Apple Inc. v. Vidal, 63 F.4th 1, 17 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (acknowledging “the realistically perceived advantages of the IPR process, including the applicability of a lighter burden of persuasion to prevail in challenging a patent claim than the burden applicable in district court.”). In such circumstances, “equitable and practical considerations” point clearly towards Petitioner having a valid, independent interest in filing the Petition in this proceeding. In AIT, the Federal Circuit also points us to our own Trial Practice” slip op. at 41
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“(‘POSITA’) at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in the field of security and access-control.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 26). Mr. Lipoff’s cited testimony merely repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill, preceded by the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. Mr. Lipoff does not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. §42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (August 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning). Patent Owner states it “does not object to the defined level of skill in the art adopted in co-pending IPR2022-00601 (the ’601 IPR) challenging the ’208 Patent.” PO Resp. 8 (citing “IPR2022-00601, Paper 11 at 11–12”). The cited claim construction is from our Decision granting institution of an inter partes review in the ’601 IPR. The level of skill in the ’601 IPR was revised slightly in our Final Written Decision in the ’601 IPR. See ’601 IPR, Paper 31 at 15. The level of skill in the ’601 IPR was based on the arguments and evidence in the ’601 IPR, which differ from the arguments and evidence in the case before us. Accordingly, based on the prior art and the sophistication of the” slip op. at 54
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“(‘POSITA’) at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in the field of security and access-control.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 26). Mr. Lipoff’s cited testimony merely repeats, verbatim, Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill, preceded by the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. Mr. Lipoff does not provide any facts or data to support his conclusory opinion. Accordingly, we give it minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. §42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (August 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 54
Patent outcomesUS 9,269,208 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,269,208 - PTAB · Dec 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00996 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–12, and 18 on both asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2022); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon 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 ’165 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–12, and 18) of the ’165 patent, based on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“7. Summary and conclusion Based on our holistic view of the Fintiv factors, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny the Petition. As discussed above, only factor 5 weighs in favor of discretionary denial, factor 1 is neutral, and factors 2, 3, and 4 weigh, in varying degrees, against discretionary denial of institution, with factors 2 and 3 being the most compelling factors. Given that the trial date has already been delayed to just four months prior to the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in this case, and that the current proposed scheduling order pushes significant discovery efforts well into 2024, the evidence of record does not favor exercising our discretion to deny institution of this inter partes review.” slip op. at 49
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 43). Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioner’s characterization of a POSITA.” Prelim. Resp. 6. Based on this record, and because there is no dispute, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’165 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Having considered the record before us at this early stage of the proceeding, and because there is no actual dispute as to the meaning of these or apparently any claim terms, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any particular claim term. And, like the parties, for purposes of this Decision we adopt, and where appropriate refer to the District Court’s claim constructions in Niantic. Apart from this, on this early record we determine that we need not further expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,991,165 - PTAB · Dec 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00995 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3, 5, 7–12, and 23–26 based on both § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon 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 ’941 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1, 3, 5, 7–12, and 23–26) of the ’941 patent, based on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“proposed scheduling order, we determine that the second Fintiv factor weighs against discretionary denial of the Petition.” slip op. at 35
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor degree in computer engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and/or two years of professional experience in the fields of networking and network-based systems or applications, such as client-server and web-based systems, in the specific context of console and gaming or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience. A POSITA[4] would have at least a general knowledge of online and in-game advertising methods prevalent in the field, as well as at least a general knowledge of 3D rendering and virtual reality. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 43). Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioner’s characterization of a POSITA.” Prelim. Resp. 6. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’941 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“However, Patent Owner does not provide any express argument for why we should adopt of any of those constructions or demonstrate that any of the constructions would be meaningfully different from the plain and ordinary meaning applied by Petitioner.5 Id. at 6–9. Indeed, we note that the constructions largely repeat the claim language with the clarification that what is claimed is computer software. See id. at 6–7 (setting forth district court constructions). Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,846,941 - PTAB · Dec 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00954 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1 and 3–9 on all three asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Angles.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For institution, “[t]he ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard is a somewhat flexible standard that allows the Board room to exercise judgment.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 53 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Litigation has moved the trial date to August 5, 2024, or approximately 4 months before the Final Written Decision is due. See Ex. 3002, 5. This proposed date represents a four-month delay in the trial date as compared to the trial date the parties argued discretionary denial in the Petition and Preliminary Response. In consideration of the above discussion, and particularly the latest proposed scheduling order, we determine that the second Fintiv factor weighs against discretionary denial of the Petition.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and/or two years of professional experience in the fields of networking and network-based systems or applications, such as client-server and web-based systems, in the specific context of console and gaming or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience. Pet. 12. Petitioner adds that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a general knowledge of online and in-game advertising methods prevalent in the field, as well as at least a general knowledge of 3D rendering and virtual reality.” Id. (referencing Ex. 1004 ¶ 43). Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s characterization.” Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the technology at issue, and Mr. Crane’s Declaration testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed definition of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner believes that no express constructions of the claims are necessary to assess whether the prior art reads on the challenged claims.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner does no raise any claim construction issues. Prelim. Resp. 4. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the record before us. 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)). To the extent that the scope of any particular claim term requires discussion, however, we provide it in our assessment of the challenges, which we turn to next. slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,458,028 - PTAB · Dec 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00959 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 9–14, 16, 18, and 20–23, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Robinson.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (permitting the Board to institute trial on behalf of the Director). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). Instituting an inter partes review, however, is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons set forth below, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“1. Factor 1 — Whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted Under the first Fintiv factor, we consider “whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Both parties indicate that no stay has been requested. Pet. 62; Prelim. Resp. 43. Also, neither party identifies any statements by the district court or other evidence that specifically address a stay of the Litigation pending this proceeding. We decline to speculate based on the record in this case whether the district court would grant a stay of the Litigation. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative) (“Fintiv II”). As a result, we determine that the first Fintiv factor is neutral.” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and/or two years of professional experience in the fields of networking and network-based systems or applications, such as client-server and web-based systems, in the specific context of console and gaming or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience. Pet. 9. Petitioner adds that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a general knowledge of online and in-game advertising methods prevalent in the field, as well as at least a general knowledge of 3D rendering and virtual reality.” Id. (referencing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 41–44). Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s characterization.” Prelim. Resp. 5. For purposes of this Decision, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the technology at issue, and Mr. Crane’s Declaration testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed definition of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and determine, on the current record, that they do not demonstrate a deficiency in Petitioner’s position. First, there is no requirement that a prior art reference use the same terminology as that used in a claim. Cf. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (stating that “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” in an anticipation analysis). Instead, we must inquire whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood, at the time of the invention, that the prior art reference taught or suggested the subject matter at issue. Cf. Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board evaluated Dr. Fudin’s opinion and the supporting Mann study and credited his testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have ‘understood the necessity of counseling males, capable of impregnating females, about the risks that attend fetal exposure to a teratogenic drug.’”). Also, we do not agree with Patent Owner that a disclosure that avatars are subject to environmental rules means that Robinson’s virtual thematic environment does not contain virtual thematic environment rules. We understand Petitioner to contend that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Robinson’s teachings that the avatars of Robinson’s 3D environment move and interact based on rules contained within the 3D environment, such as an environment extended to an online game. See Pet. 45–46. As to Patent Owner’s other arguments, we do not agree, on the current record, that Mr. Crane’s testimony is conclusory or that Patent Owner or the Board was forced to go searching for support for his testimony. Mr. Crane states that “[i]n forming my opinion, I have drawn on my academic background and professional experiences. My opinions herein, however, were formed taking into account the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 44; see also id. ¶¶ 5–20 (providing Mr. Crane’s background and qualifications, including reference to his curriculum vitae (Ex. 1005)). Also, Mr. Crane provides background information to the subject matter of the ’724 patent in support of his testimony. See id. ¶¶ 71–86.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,255,724
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.