- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2025-00954 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 8–19 are unpatentable: claim 3 is anticipated by Yu and obvious over Okashita, Okashita and Yu, and Burgener and Okashita; claims 8–19 are obvious over Burgener and Okashita, with or without Yu.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“ORDER For the foregoing reasons, ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion to Amend (Paper 19) is granted, and claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are canceled;” slip op. at 37
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of ordinary skill, arguing that a bachelor’s degree, not a master’s degree, is all that is required because that is the “target audience for the ’886 Patent.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner does not otherwise dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Id. We used Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 13. Neither party argues any issue as dependent on the level of ordinary skill or the differences between the proposals. Accordingly, the issues here are not dependent on the level of ordinary skill and the result is the same regardless of which definition is adopted. On this record, there is no reason to change from Petitioner’s definition used in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“transistors” as a term that might require construction during trial. Inst. Dec. 17–18. At the hearing, the Petitioner argued that “cascaded transistors” means “[ar]ranged in a series of or in succession of stages so that each stage derives from or acts upon the product of the preceding [transistor]” and that there is no dispute that the limitation is taught by the prior art. Tr. 9:15–22. Patent Owner takes no position as to whether or not the prior art discloses “cascaded transistors.” Id. at 33:13–21 (“For the remainder of this proceeding, post institution, we have not taken any position regarding the scope of the cascaded transistors or the disclosure of the cascaded transistors in any of the prior art. We have not disputed that.”). Because Patent Owner takes no position on the issue, there is no dispute that “cascaded transistors” are shown in the prior art, construction is not necessary. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. original)). 2. “isolated island” Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention that the prior art teaches or suggests claim 3’s recitation of “said plurality of cascaded transistors is situated within an isolated island.” Pet. 35–36; PO Resp. 16–17. Although the parties dispute whether an “isolated island” is shown in the prior art, neither party proposes a construction for the term “isolated island.” We agree that the arguments presented do not require construction of “isolated island.” The issues can be determined on the plain meaning of the term in view of the arguments made. See Section II.D below.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown Yu is analogous art to Okashita. Both references are directed to the manufacture of semiconductors, which we find to be the field of endeavor. Ex. 1004, 1:47– 58; Ex. 1005, 1:16–26. More specifically, we agree with Petitioner and find that both references are in the same field of endeavor because they relate to SOI configuration. Pet. Reply 6 (citing Pet. 7–8, 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–80, 90–91). Because we find the references relied upon are in the same field of endeavor, we need not reach whether they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,745,886 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,745,886 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01402 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 3 and 8–19 unpatentable: claim 3 was anticipated by Yu and obvious on the stated grounds, and claims 3 and 8–19 were obvious over Burgener and Okashita, with or without Yu.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,745,886 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’886 patent”). Petitioner filed a Declaration of Dr. Scott E. Thompson, Ph.D., in support of the Petition. Ex. 1002 (“Thompson Dec.”). Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On April 4, 2025, we instituted this inter partes review as to the Challenged Claims and all grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”). Following institution, Patent Owner filed a Response to the Petition (“PO Resp.”) limited to the patentability of the challenged claims. Paper 18. In support of the Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner filed a Declaration of John Berg. Ex. 2006. Patent Owner also filed an Unopposed Motion to Amend, cancelling claims 1, 2, and 4–7. Paper 19 (“Mot.”). We grant the motion. This proceeding is therefore limited to the patentability of claims 3 and 8–19 (“challenged claims”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of ordinary skill, arguing that a bachelor’s degree, not a master’s degree, is all that is required because that is the “target audience for the ’886 Patent.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner does not otherwise dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Id. We used Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 13. Neither party argues any issue as dependent on the level of ordinary skill or the differences between the proposals. Accordingly, the issues here are not dependent on the level of ordinary skill and the result is the same regardless of which definition is adopted. On this record, there is no reason to change from Petitioner’s definition used in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“transistors” as a term that might require construction during trial. Inst. Dec. 17–18. At the hearing, the Petitioner argued that “cascaded transistors” means “[ar]ranged in a series of or in succession of stages so that each stage derives from or acts upon the product of the preceding [transistor]” and that there is no dispute that the limitation is taught by the prior art. Tr. 9:15–22. Patent Owner takes no position as to whether or not the prior art discloses “cascaded transistors.” Id. at 33:13–21 (“For the remainder of this proceeding, post institution, we have not taken any position regarding the scope of the cascaded transistors or the disclosure of the cascaded transistors in any of the prior art. We have not disputed that.”). Because Patent Owner takes no position on the issue, there is no dispute that “cascaded transistors” are shown in the prior art, construction is not necessary. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. original)). 2. “isolated island” Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention that the prior art teaches or suggests claim 3’s recitation of “said plurality of cascaded transistors is situated within an isolated island.” Pet. 35–36; PO Resp. 16–17. Although the parties dispute whether an “isolated island” is shown in the prior art, neither party proposes a construction for the term “isolated island.” We agree that the arguments presented do not require construction of “isolated island.” The issues can be determined on the plain meaning of the term in view of the arguments made. See Section II.D below.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successAnalogous artMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown Yu is analogous art to Okashita. Both references are directed to the manufacture of semiconductors, which we find to be the field of endeavor. Ex. 1004, 1:47– 58; Ex. 1005, 1:16–26. More specifically, we agree with Petitioner and find that both references are in the same field of endeavor because they relate to SOI configuration. Pet. Reply 6 (citing Pet. 7–8, 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–80, 90–91). Because we find the references relied upon are in the same field of endeavor, we need not reach whether they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. We also find that Petitioner has shown rational underpinnings for combining Okashita and Yu. Pet. 43–44. That the references have differences is not the test. Rather, the test is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to combine them. We find there is sufficient motivation. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:4–17; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 177– 178). 3. Conclusion on Ground 3 Patent Owner does not argue any other reason that Ground 3 has not been sufficiently shown. Based on the full record, we determine that Okashita and Yu teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 3 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success. We thus determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 would have been obvious over the combination of Okashita and Yu.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,745,886 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,745,886 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00207 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Director review
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–7, 11–14, and 16–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“Petitioner filed a request for Director Review of the Decision granting Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denying institution (“Decision,” Paper 10) and Patent Owner filed an authorized response. See Paper 121 (“DR Request”); Paper 13 (“Patent Owner Response”). The Director granted the DR Request and referred the Petition to the Board “to handle the case in the normal course, including by issuing a decision on institution addressing the merits and other non-discretionary considerations, as appropriate.” Paper 14 (“Order Granting Director Review”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (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.”) We therefore institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’228 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See SAS Inst. Inc. v Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 364–65 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (a)” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“As noted above, Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response and thus does not respond at this time. Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of our Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“a “single caching agent,” which is recited in claim 1 here. ’1344 IPR, Paper 31 (“Final Written Decision”), 16–18. We concluded that a “‘single caching agent’ means ‘one caching agent for the processor, which may be formed from distributed portions.’” Id. at 18.” slip op. at 14
Claim constructioncites KSR · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,984,228 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01343 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 13–15, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable because Bose and White, alone or in the asserted combinations, failed to teach claimed workload comparisons or workload monitoring.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We are persuaded and find for the reasons given that Petitioner fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that White teaches or suggests “receiving a bus workload for a communication bus and a first processing element workload for a first processing element based on an integrated circuit reaching a limit.” Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Brogioli testifies that “[t]he workload is a function of the demands imposed by, e.g., applications running on the system, and may or may not be subject to direct control, whereas the conditions under which that workload is processed are controlled directly.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 66. We agree with Dr. Brogioli and find that White’s frequency and voltage monitoring and adjustments do not result in the power management logic receiving the bus workload as recited in claim element 4[a]. Id. ¶¶ 64–66. We find the testimony of Mr. Wyatt on this issue unconvincing. Wyatt Decl. ¶ 103. In support of his opinion that “monitoring the operating voltages and frequencies of the logic core 120A and common logic bridge 110 is monitoring the workload of those components,” he states: “It was well understood that operating frequency and voltage of a component reflect the activity and use, or workload, of that component.” Id. However, he does not provide any evidentiary support for this statement. We, therefore, give it little weight. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 40 (Nov. 2019)5 (“Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.”) (citing Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).” slip op. at 30
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“response. Paper 9. At the institution stage, therefore, Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 12–13. In its Response, Patent Owner states that it “uses this definition” in its analysis. PO Resp. 15 (citing Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25). In view of the foregoing, for this Decision, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’494 patent and the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Mr. Wyatt. See Wyatt Decl. ¶ 21.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionGranted
“Post-institution, Patent Owner proposes a construction for the term “workload.” PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in the ’494 patent, the term ‘workload’ means ‘an amount of activity over a quantum or period of time.’” Id. at 15. Dr. Brogioli’s testimony supports this construction, as does Mr. Wyatt’s. Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 36–38; Wyatt Dep. 34:14–36:9. The ’494 patent also supports this construction. Ex. 1001, 8:20–22, 9:60–63. Petitioner does not dispute this proposed construction in its Reply. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “workload.”” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Nowhere does Petitioner or its expert point to an explicit disclosure in Bose of making a comparison of the claimed “bus workload and a bus workload threshold.” Instead, Petitioner relies on its expert’s opinion as to what a person of ordinary skill might have known, without any additional supporting evidence. See, e.g., Pet. 26 (“[A person of ordinary skill] would have understood global PMCU compares a workload threshold as exemplified by the predicted power and performance of each power mode and the monitored workload to select and adjust the power mode of a component” (citing Wyatt Decl. ¶¶ 54–55)). This opinion is not supported by the record. The only disclosure of a comparison in Bose that we have been shown is the comparison of PowerTotal to PowerMax in step 303 of Figure 3, which Petitioner does not rely on to meet the “comparison” limitation in the claim. Hearing Tr. 17:16–20. Also without proper support is Petitioner’s assertion that “a [person of ordinary skill] would have understood that in Bose, selecting or adjusting power mode for a component entails comparing a workload threshold, such as predicted power and performance associated with each power mode with real time statistics, such as the monitored workload of a component.” Pet. 26 (citing Wyatt Decl. ¶¶ 55–56). We determine that for the reasons given, Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimed comparison element 1[g] of claim 1 is taught or suggested by Bose. We find, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that claim 1 is anticipated by Bose, nor has Petitioner demonstrated that to a person of ordinary skill, claim 1 would have been obvious in light of Bose.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,898,494 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,898,494 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01333 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Sutardja, Sutardja and Rychlik, or Sutardja and Carmack; the Board did not reach the Mathieson-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 14–15.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We decline to “throw out” Dr. Horst’s testimony for several reasons. First and foremost, Patent Owner has not moved or otherwise sought to exclude his testimony, or even filed an objection. Hearing Tr. 46:19–47:1. Thus, the issue of whether the testimony should be excluded is not properly before us. Further, Petitioner asserts that “[t]his distinction is irrelevant.” Pet. Reply 2. We agree. Patent Owner has not pointed to any opinion by Dr. Horst that turns on the alleged “flaw” in the definition of the person of ordinary skill. Id. at 46:19–48:3. Finally, there is no prejudice. Patent Owner’s expert used the definition proposed by Patent Owner in his analysis. See Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25. Nor could Patent Owner show us with specificity any place in the record where resolving this dispute would make a difference in this case. Hearing Tr. 46:3–47:3. For the reasons given, we do not see the need to modify our definition of a person of ordinary skill or to exclude or give little weight to Dr. Horst’s opinions.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionGranted
“operating system.” PO Resp. 12–13. Relying on the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Patent Owner contends that “[a]n ‘operating system’ is, and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be, ‘The software that controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources such as memory, central processing unit (CPU) time, disk space, and peripheral devices.’” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2007, 378). Dr. Brogioli’s testimony generally supports this construction, as does Dr. Horst’s. See Brogioli Dep. 8:17–22; Horst Dep. 32:3–8. Petitioner responds that the term “should be understood in accordance with its plain meaning,” and therefore does not require construction, but does not dispute Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Pet. Reply 2. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “operating system.” However, we do not see this construction as dispositive of the central issue of whether the operating system in Sutardja controls the transition of the cores. See Section II.D.1, infra. slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“PMS module do not ‘control’ the core switching module or the hardware on which it runs. Instead, the kernel and the PMS module only make system calls to the core switching module.” PO Resp. 27. We disagree that this is not sufficient control to meet this claim limitation. As Dr. Horst’s testimony (quoted supra) explains, the PMS module and kernel modules “trigger a transition” by generating a call to the hypervisor module or a core switching module. Horst Decl. ¶ 124. Patent Owner’s argument fails because it assumes the claims require direct control, when the claims recite no such restriction (nor have we been asked by either party to construe the claims as such).” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,049,080 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,049,080 - PTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00823 · APJ Carl W Whitehead Jr · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and 13–22 over Bigbee and Nguyen, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness, and granted Valeo’s motion to join IPR2023-01373.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Having considered the arguments presented in the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’958 patent is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Bigbee and Nguyen. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1–8 and 13–22) on all grounds set forth in the Petition. Our determinations at this stage of the proceeding are based on the evidentiary record currently before us. This decision to institute trial is not a final decision as to the patentability of any claim for which we have instituted an inter partes review. See TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that “there is a significant difference between a Petitioner’s burden to establish a ‘reasonable likelihood of” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts: A person of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter of the ’958 patent would have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of work experience with computer architecture design. Additional education in the field could be substituted for industry experience, and vice versa. See Prelim. Resp. 3. The parties’ positions appear to be more or less the same. Based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision, as it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. We note that our Decision would be the same under either party’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“At this stage of the proceeding, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. 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))). After reviewing the parties’ evidence and contentions, we do not observe a dispute over the meaning of these terms that is necessary to resolve at this stage. Accordingly, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Based on our review and consideration of the current record, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Bigbee and Nguyen teaches the recited elements of limitation 19a for purposes of institution and has provided reasons sufficiently supported by factual underpinnings to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success. Nguyen discloses, “[t]he present invention addresses mechanisms for combining recoverable and non-recoverable error handling mechanisms efficiently in FRC-enabled processors.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 9. Subsequently, Nguyen distinguishes recoverable from non-recoverable errors by treating non-recoverable errors differently from recoverable errors. Nguyen discloses, “If an error reaches error detector 140 from either core 120, recovery module 150 is activated to implement a recovery routine. Recovery can be implemented with relatively low latency by hardware, software, firmware or some combination of these.” Id. ¶ 22, Fig. 1. “However, an FRC error will be triggered if the corrupted data from one execution core and an uncorrupted version of the data from the other execution are allowed to reach FRC checker 130 before recovery module 150 is activated.” Id. Nguyen recognizes, “[s]ince FRC errors are not recoverable, reset module 160 resets the system, if FRC checker 130 signals an FRC error before the underlying parity/ECC error is detected.” Id. Nguyen further recognizes that, “[n]ot all FRC-errors are traceable to underlying parity/ECC or other correctible soft errors. For those that are, it is faster for error detector 140 to address the under lying soft error than for FRC-checker to address the FRC error that results when the corrupted data reaches FRC boundary 104.” Id. ¶ 23 (emphasis added). In this instance instead of the FRC-error being processed by the FRC checker 130 and the Reset module 160, the FRC error is directed to the Error detector 140 and eventually recovery module 150. See id. at Fig. 1. Nguyen also discloses, “the recovery routine triggered by error detector 140 provides greater system availability than the reset routine triggered by FRC checker 130” and “[e]xpanding the FRC boundary thus increases both the amount of logic that is duplicated for execution cores 120 and the flight time, during which detectable errors may be identified.” Id. ¶ 30, Fig 1; see Pet. 37. Nguyen further discloses, “[t]he former increases FRC protection, albeit through a reset mechanism” as shown in Figure 1, elements FRC Checker 130 and Reset Module 160. Ex. 1006 ¶ 30. “The latter increases the likelihood that errors identifiable through parity, ECC [error correction code] or similar core-specific protections are handled through recovery rather than reset” as shown in Figure 1, elements Error Detector, 140 and Recovery Module 150. Id. Additionally, Nguyen’s Figure 7, as discussed above, “is a block” slip op. at 33
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,502,958 - PTAB · Mar 14, 2024 · PGR2022-00061 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · PGR · Final written decision
The Board granted Patent Owner’s non-contingent motion to amend, cancelling claims 1–34 and replacing them with substitute claims 35–66 supported by the written description.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“complies with the legal requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 326(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.221. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4, 7–8. Specifically, Patent Owner must show that the amendments do not enlarge the scope of the claims or introduce “new matter.” See 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii)). Lectrosonics describes “new matter” as follows:” slip op. at 4
- 112 supportGranted
“description support for the proposed substitute claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(9); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221; Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7–8. The written description test is met when the original disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with this argument because it is not consistent with the ’953 patent specification or the plain meaning of “replace.” Neither party requested a special construction of the term “replace.” We see no merit in Petitioner’s contention that the plain meaning of “replace” in Figure 32 does not require removal of the device being replaced. The contention that the plain meaning of “replace” does not require “removing” was explored with Petitioner’s counsel at the oral argument: THE BOARD: If you replace a player in a football game or baseball game, a new player goes in and replaces that player. You don't add a 12th, a 12th player or a 10th player to a baseball team. You replace the player that’s there with a different player. Isn’t that what replacement is all about? COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Your Honor, in that context, it absolutely is. Because there’s no other way to understand that. You know, but we’re not talking about baseball or people here obviously. Hearing Tr. 18:23–19:3 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 11,349,953 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / Amazon.Com, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00384 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9–12 are unpatentable under § 103 over Meyer, Zeff, Edlund, and Fisher; the Board did not reach the alternative ground adding Tittel.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“1 Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC, Inc. filed a motion for joinder and a petition in IPR2023-00384, which were granted. Accordingly, Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC have been joined as a petitioner in this proceeding.” slip op. at 1
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction for “automatically with the BT computer system.” Under Phillips, the starting point for the analysis is the language of the claims themselves. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Claim 9 recites “automatically with the BT computer system” and does not otherwise recite or require the acts recited in the claims that follow, such as “arranging for a third party computer system . . . to electronically tag a first computer of a first visitor visiting a website . . .” to be performed in whole or part by the BT computer system. Accordingly, based on the record evidence, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “automatically with the BT computer system.” As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not further explicitly construe “automatically with the BT computer system” to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[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))).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“provide support for its construction, we do not agree that the proposed construction for “profile information” “derives directly from the specification of the ’615 Patent.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction has a broader in scope than the ’615 Patent Specification disclosures cited by Patent Owner as support. Without explanation, Patent Owner’s proposed property” and “demographic information about a visitor to a media property” (PO Resp. 7–8) (emphasis added), while the cited ’615 Patent Specification discloses that the “visitor’s profile “could be the observed behavior of the visitor on the media property, demographic information collected on the media property.” Ex. 1001, 3:37–44 (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:16–21, 4:64–67. In other words, without explanation, Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “profile information” encompasses the observed behavior, in general, of a media property visitor and the demographic information, in general, about a media property visitor, and is therefore broader than the cited ’615 Patent Specification, which more narrowly discloses the visitor’s observed behavior on the media property and the visitor’s demographic information collected on the media property. Patent Owner does not direct us to disclosure in the ’615 Patent Specification to support the full scope of Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “profile information.” In sum, based on the record evidence, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “profile information,” because the broad scope of the proposed construction is not supported by Patent Owner’s citations to the ’615 Patent Specification disclosure. Consistent with the cited ’615 Patent Specification disclosures, we instead construe “profile information” as “the observed behavior of the visitor on the media property, demographic information collected on the media property, or both.”8” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“system.” Under Phillips, the starting point for the analysis is the language of the claims themselves. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. The language of claim 9 does not include limitations precluding the later occurring transfer of any profile information as a result of tagging the first computer of a first visitor visiting a first website. See Ex. 1001, 14:7–40. We also agree with Petitioner’s arguments that the language of claim 9, by use of the transitional phrase “comprising,” does not preclude the occurrence of “transferring to the third party computer system any profile information” after the step of “arranging for a third party computer system . . . to electronically tag a first computer of a first visitor visiting a first website, which occurs “at a first time.” See id. We also do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that the ’615 Patent Specification supports its construction. Although Patent Owner directs attention to the ’615 Patent Specification disclosures that the BT computer company stores a visitor’s collected profile information and does not transfer it to the second media property, but asks the second media property to tag the visitor or arrange for a tag to be placed (see PO Resp. 10; Ex. 1001, 9:47–54), and further discloses that the BT company has no economic incentive to transfer profile information to the second media property (see PO Resp. 11; Ex. 1001, 9:54–65), these disclosures do not provide sufficient support for Patent Owner’s requirement that “arranging for a third party computer system . . . to electronically tag a first computer of a first visitor visiting a first website” must not result in transfer of visitor profile information to the third party computer system. See PO Resp. 10–11.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,830,615 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,830,615 - Box, Inc. / Dropbox, Inc. v. Topia Technology, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 10, 2023 · IPR2023-00432 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–4, 8–11, and 13–16 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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 that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. For the reasons set forth below, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1–4, 8–11, and 13–16 of the ’823 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find that the Petition presents sufficient reasoning to support why a person of skill in the art would modify Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm in view of Shappell’s and Rao’s teachings. Shappell and Rao simply teach that metadata is sent first and content or raw data is sent second. Petitioner contends that because the metadata is known to usually contain less data than a file and the updated version is newer, Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm should be reconfigured to assign greater priority to the metadata and lower priority to the files. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1028 ¶ 177. Petitioner asserts that Sigurdsson motivates the modification because of the “natural harmony” of Sigurdsson’s algorithm to prioritizing metadata. Pet. 23; Ex. 1028 ¶ 177. There is no explanation provided in the Petition, however, as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would opt to modify Sigurdsson to assign and compare priorities by reconfiguring the priority algorithm of Sigurdsson when there is the simpler way of using software to simply send metadata first and content second as taught in Shappell/Rao. Absent explanation in the Petition as to why one of skill in the art would opt to reconfigure Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm to assign and compare priorities rather than employing the simpler method taught in Shappell/Rao of just sending metadata first, the Petition lacks rational underpinning.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“We have reviewed the motions and the documents at issue and have considered the explanations of the confidential nature of the materials for which sealing is sought. We find there is good cause and therefore we grant the motions to seal and the associated request to enter the protective order.” slip op. at 30
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,754,823 - Box, Inc. / Dropbox, Inc. v. Topia Technology, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 10, 2023 · IPR2023-00431 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both §103 grounds because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims required priority assignment and comparison.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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 that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. For the reasons set forth below, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1–4, 8–11, and 13–16 of the ’787 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“bachelor’s degree in computer science (or a similar degree) with two years of work experience in developing software, including at least some experience with storage, synchronization, and human-computer interaction technologies.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 17, 21). Patent Owner does not 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’787 patent claims priority, through a continuation application, to a provisional application filed before March 16, 2013, and neither party has argued that the provisions of the AIA apply at this time, we apply the pre-AIA versions of the statutory bases for unpatentability. See Ex. 1007, codes (60), (63). 3 U.S. Publication No. 2007/0174246 A1, published July 26, 2007 (Ex. 1016). 4 U.S. Publication No. 2005/0091289 A1, published April 28, 2005 (Ex. 1020). 5 U.S. Publication No. 2006/0190506 A1, published April 24, 2006 (Ex. 1019). 6 U.S. Patent No. 7,035,847 B2, filed March 15, 2002 (Ex. 1025). 7 U.S. Publication No. 2005/0120082 A1, published June 2, 2005 (Ex. 1026). proposed definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this juncture, we determine that the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for an ordinarily skilled artisan are consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and in the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Neither party requests that we expressly construe any claim term. Pet. 6; see generally, Prelim. Resp. At this juncture, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any claim term for this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find that the Petition presents sufficient reasoning to support why a person of skill in the art would modify Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm in view of Shappell’s and Rao’s teachings. Shappell and Rao simply teach that metadata is sent first and content or raw data is sent second. Petitioner contends that because the metadata is known to usually contain less data than a file and the updated version is newer, Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm should be reconfigured to assign greater priority to the metadata and lower priority to the files. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1028 ¶ 177. Petitioner asserts that Sigurdsson motivates the modification because of the “natural harmony” of Sigurdsson’s algorithm to prioritizing metadata. Pet. 23; Ex. 1028 ¶ 177. There is no explanation provided in the Petition, however, as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would opt to modify Sigurdsson to assign and compare priorities by reconfiguring the priority algorithm of Sigurdsson when there is the simpler way of using software to simply send metadata first and content second as taught in Shappell/Rao. Absent explanation in the Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm to assign and compare priorities rather than employing the simpler method taught in Shappell/Rao of just sending metadata first, the Petition lacks rational underpinning.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,642,787
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.