• Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00342 · APJ Phillip A Bennett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang and over Prajapat and Wang; the contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “3. May Not Enlarge the Claim Scope An amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the” slip op. at 87

  • Strike new argumentDenied

    “comprise briefs filed by Petitioner in support of a motion to dismiss for lack of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the parallel district court litigation involving the challenged patents. The exhibits were submitted together with Patent Owner’s Sur-reply (Paper 33). We have not relied on Exhibit 2006 or Exhibit 2007 in our analysis. Accordingly, we deny the motion as moot.” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2005–” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining compatible embodiments, and we credit Dr. Lieberman’s testimony because he supports his testimony with a passage from Lebrun that is consistent with his conclusion. Id. (stating “Lebrun describes several ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ which includes a subsection of ‘multiple group surfing channels.’ Ex. 1005, 37:19, 43:5 (emphasis in original).”). Consistent with Lebrun’s description, Dr. Lieberman opines, and we agree, that “[a] POSITA would understand ‘multiple group surfing channels’ would be one example/scenario of the ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ and the latter encompasses the former and the two embodiments are compatible and combinable.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 18.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,527,591 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,527,591
• Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00341 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over Lebrun and Wang or over Prajapat and Wang because the combinations did not teach key invitation and webpage retrieval limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, 7 Patent Owner has not offered objective evidence of non-obviousness. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. 21 (indicating Petitioner is not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations). least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 12; see Dec. 10–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 37. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part

    “surfing server as forwarding the session-creation message to the invited web client. PO Sur-reply 12. Although Lebrun describes the group-surfing server as “informing the participants in the group-surfing server session” after receiving the session-creation message and creating the group-surfing session, Lebrun does not describe forwarding or otherwise sending the session-creation message to the participants. Ex. 1005, 32:26–28, 44:12–14. Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “receive webpage content from the website server in particular ways as identified in limitations [1e] and [1g]. Similarly, claim 1 requires the invitee device to retrieve data from the website server in response to receiving “the information related to the shared web browsing interaction from the synchronization server” (limitation [1f.iii]). For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence its combination of Lebrun and Wang does so. For the required website server interaction, in its Petition, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s description of an alternative embodiment applicable only when no cookies or other identity information are involved (Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). See, e.g., Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). As Patent Owner indicates, this alternative is not relevant to the subject matter recited in claim 1 which requires identity information. PO Resp. 45. Petitioner does not address this shortcoming in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Rather, in its Reply, for website server interaction, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s functionality of sending a web page from the web server to the web client as shown in Lebrun’s Figure 1. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 32:21–24, 31:27–30, Fig. 1). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Lebrun discloses that (i) a URL for the initial web page is included in session-creation message 151 (Ex. 1005, 32:21–24), (ii) the web site sends a web page directly to the web client (Fig. 1), and (iii) the web site delivers information 132 to web clients or the group-surfing server 140 “in response Pet. Reply 11. Although this shows the web site sending a web page directly to a web client, the prior art of Lebrun does not do so in the manner required by the claims (limitations [1e], [1f.i], [1f.iii], [1g]).” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 9,483,448 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,483,448
• Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00339 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang; the Board did not reach the separate Prajapat and Wang challenge.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (2) at least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 11–12; see Dec. 9–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 42. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data” and, as a result, this portion of the specification should limit the claim term. PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). The quoted portion of Mr. Friedman’s testimony, however, addresses other terms in the specification and not “information related to a shared web browsing interaction.” PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). As such, the testimony cited by Patent Owner does not support Patent Owner’s position. Accordingly, we determine that the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data” in the written description. c. Plain and Ordinary Meaning Because the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data,” we look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., from the ordinary meaning will be adopted “when the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner arguing that “web browsing interaction data” should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning) (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13). Notably, both Dr. Lieberman and Mr. Friedman agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is sufficient to inform how one of ordinary skill would have understood the term. Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (Dr. Lieberman testifying: “The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions. No additional definition or limitation is required in my opinion, nor is there any special or specific meaning given to the term in the specification of the ’145 patent.”); Ex. 1033, 171:5–16 (Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Friedman, testifying that “the plain and ordinary meaning is sufficient.”). According to Petitioner, the plain and ordinary meaning is “data related to web browsing interactions.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13); Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (“The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions.”). Patent Owner’s expert declined to opine on what the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” other than it excludes webpages and partially filled webpages related to a web browsing interaction. See Ex. 1033, 171:5–16. slip op. at 27

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, we conclude that the plain language of the claims does not require “web browsing interaction data” to be limited to data describing interaction performed on a website by a host device. We turn to the specification because the meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is informed “not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The written description does not provide a definition or clear meaning for “web browsing interaction data.” Patent Owner acknowledges the term is not expressly used in the written description. PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner, however, identifies “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” as a term that is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data.” PO Resp. 18, 29. We recognize the specification term “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is substantially similar10 to Petitioner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” as “data related to web browsing interactions.” 11 Patent Owner identifies three passages that each describe the present invention as receiving information related to a shared web browsing interaction performed by a host device and performing the shared web browsing interaction based on the received information. PO Resp. 17–18 (block quoting Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:10–24). The identified passages, however, do not show intention to manifestly limit “web browsing interaction data” to data describing interactions” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “forth by Petitioner (Pet. 22–34) discloses or suggests all limitations recited by claim 1, we consider Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Lebrun and Wang in the manner proposed to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 19–22. (i) Articulated Reasoning To demonstrate obviousness, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Wang’s activating a session invitation with Lebrun’s invitation to join a group-surfing session. Pet. 28. Specifically, Petitioner contends that “activating an invitation via a designated URL address would further enable” Lebrun’s group-surfing server “to coordinate and manage the group-surfing session, which would further Lebrun’s objective of providing an ‘improved technique for group access to web sites.’” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:1). We agree with Petitioner that activating an invitation via a designated URL address would be a technique that helps coordinate a group-surfing session and would enable multiple related users being able to access “substantially the same” slip op. at 63

  Patent outcomesUS 9,185,145 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,185,145
• Apple Inc. v. Ald Social LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01399 · APJ Phillip A Bennett · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Wolfe renders claim 1 obvious under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “review is under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To institute an inter partes review, the information presented in the Petition must show “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).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The prior art of record also reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The asserted prior art, like the challenged patent, presents high-level schematics and functional descriptions of various system components used in monitoring events and crowd behavior using location-based services. These system components largely include servers, websites, and mobile telephones utilizing wireless technologies, such as Wi-Fi, cellular, and global positioning system (GPS) to communicate and generate location data regarding mobile devices, as well as the use of databases to store historical information related to location-based services. The prior art and the patent provide description of monitoring crowd behavior by tracking the location of groups of mobile devices. Neither the challenged patent nor the asserted” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “we agree with Petitioner that “[t]he specification does not provide any explicit definition.” Pet. 14. The written description, however, indicates “[a] viral event is defined as occurring when one or more predefined parameter thresholds have been surpassed, as determined in the exemplary embodiment in the Network Monitor 302.” Ex. 1001, 4:45–48. As Petitioner notes, the written description also provides examples of predefined parameter thresholds used by Network Monitor 302 “to determine if the monitored network indicates that a viral event may be occurring or impending.” Ex. 1001, 5:14–16; Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:16–20). Examples of predefined parameter thresholds include an excessive number of wireless devices in an area, excessive use of wireless devices in an area, two highly dense clusters of wireless devices converging at a significant rate of speed, and the difference in the number of wireless devices in an area exceeds a threshold over consecutive time periods. Ex. 1001, 5:15–20, 5:31–35, 5:41–42 (“to assess the number . . . of wireless devices”), 5:55–57; see Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:31–36, 5:51–57). As such, the written description describes parameter thresholds related to number, use, and movement of wireless devices being used to determine whether a viral event may be occurring.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableInstituted

    “institution. On this preliminary record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that responsive to the network monitor observing a significant aggregation of devices in a particular area, application 322 functions as a crowd risk determinant because the application 322 assesses the needs arising from the aggregation of devices in that area. Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 46. Additionally, although the example provided in Wolfe relates to determining the number of pizza slices needed based on how many devices are in particular location, on this preliminary record, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement a similar risk analysis to determine that police patrols would be needed in a particular area, as taught by Wolfe, based on the determination of crowd’s location, activity, and movement. Id. at 14.” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,402,158
• Apple Inc. v. Ald Social, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01398 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Wolfe and Pfeffer.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards 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 in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on declaration testimony from Dr. Guy (Ex. 1003), Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the field of crowd analysis and location-based computing” and would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science/computer engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of crowd analysis and location-based computing.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner further notes that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. For purposes of this Institution Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “agree with Petitioner that “[t]he specification does not provide any explicit definition” for “indication of a viral event.” Pet. 13. The written description, however, indicates “[a] viral event is defined as occurring when one or more predefined parameter thresholds have been surpassed, as determined in the exemplary embodiment in the Network Monitor 302.” Ex. 1001, 4:40–43. As Petitioner notes, the written description also provides examples of predefined parameter thresholds used by Network Monitor 302 “to determine if the monitored network indicates that a viral event may be occurring or impending.” Ex. 1001, 5:9–12; Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:9–15). Examples of predefined parameter thresholds include an excessive number of wireless devices in an area, excessive use of wireless devices in an area, two highly dense clusters of wireless devices converging at a significant rate of speed, and the difference in the number of wireless devices in an area exceeds a threshold over consecutive time periods. Ex. 1001, 5:12–14, 5:27–31, 5:35 (“to assess the number . . . of wireless devices”), 5:48–51; see Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:26–31, 5:45–51). As such, the written description describes parameter thresholds related to number, use, and movement of wireless devices being used to determine whether a viral event may be occurring.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted

    “4. The Combination of Wolfe and Pfeffer To demonstrate obviousness, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. More specifically, to prevail, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that “a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Regarding the required articulate reasoning, Petitioner contends that “[a]lthough Wolfe teaches providing relevant crowd information to police, Wolfe does not provide the details for how to alert and notify the police.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 14). “Pfeffer, however, fills in Wolfe’s details by specifically teaching techniques for receiving information about crowds, evaluating the information, and alerting first responders when needed,” according to Petitioner. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, ¶¶ 6, 40–41). Petitioner also contends that the combination would provide additional benefits to Wolfe’s system from Pfeffer’s additional features, such as providing “continuous updates to the incident scenario model saved for future use, recommendations for the most effective methods to respond to the incident based on past responses and current trends, and determining if an incident should be elevated based on the number of people involved in the incident.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 28, 77, 85). Regarding the required expectation of success, Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have found the combination of Wolfe and Pfeffer predictable” because they are similar in that “both systems analyze crowd information to identify safety risks.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 75; Ex. 1004, Abstract, ¶¶ 11, 14; Ex. 1005 ¶ 28). Petitioner further asserts that “[a] POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success when combining Wolfe and Pfeffer because [they] are implemented in the same manner,” with both being implemented on servers and with Pfeffer indicating that its techniques could be “any combination of software and/or hardware that is configured to perform one or more tasks.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 1004 ¶ 70, 74; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 32). Petitioner also contends “the combination would use known techniques (Pfeffer’s implementation details of an incident response method) to improve a similar system (Wolfe’s crowd detection and incident response system) in the same way (providing crowd details and incident information to first responders so that they may better respond to comprised crowd safety).” Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–79). Petitioner’s showing (Pet. 23–27) of articulated reasoning to support” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,198,054
• Ironsource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · PGR2022-00053 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–22 are unpatentable under collateral estoppel; revised substitute claims 23–37 are allowed because Petitioner did not prove them unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “The party seeking to invoke collateral estoppel must show: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) [the party against who collateral estoppel is being asserted] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action. Google, 54 F.4th at 1381 (quoting In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Collateral estoppel may also operate to bar re-litigation of common issues in actions involving different but related patents. Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 252 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Amgen, Inc. v. Genetics Inst., Inc., 98 F.3d 1328, 1329–32 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We are persuaded that each of the four Google requirements is satisfied and, accordingly, agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’256 patent are unpatentable in light of our Final Written Decision in PGR2021-00096.” slip op. at 13

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “specific requirements of the claims.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). But “failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims” is what Petitioner’s analysis of the claim limitations appears to do. Petitioner’s argument that “the focus of the claims” is captured by a single claim element (f3) not only ignores that that limitation recites performing two specific software tasks simultaneously—which we are not persuaded is an abstract idea—but also asks us to disregard multiple technical aspects recited in the claims, such as identifying a link, determining whether an installation client is available on the device, invoking the installation client, and redirecting to the device an app store. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 21:12–41; Revised MTA 24–25. That is, under Step 2A of the Guidance, we are neither persuaded that limitation f3, which Petitioner points us to, recites an abstract idea (Prong 1), nor that the other limitations recited in the independent claims fail to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application (Prong 2). Petitioner characterizes the claims as directed to multitasking, which Petitioner describes as an example applied to improve a user experience, i.e., as related to organizing human activity. Pet. 29. Although the Guidance recognizes certain methods of organizing human activity, including certain activity between a person and a computer, as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea, we are not persuaded that the claims here fall within the scope of such activity. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships as organizing human activity). The claimed invention may result in multitasking on the device, but the background instead of directing the user to an app store, thereby maintaining user experience with the foreground application, and do not recite an abstract idea. And although that process does result in improving user experience, the claims recite more than that mere result; they recite specific steps—invoking, without exiting the foreground software application, the installation client for downloading and installing applications on the device to run in the background—that accomplish the desired result. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding a method that employs a new kind of file in a computer security system directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality, rather than the abstract idea of computer security writ large). Petitioner thus fails to establish sufficiently that the claims are directed patent ineligible subject matter under Step 2A of the Guidance.” slip op. at 52

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “When the application package 172 has been received by the client system 130, the App Manager 180 may extract or retrieve a set of requested permissions 174 from the application package 172, and present a request to the user for asking for approval to perform operations corresponding to the requested permissions, e.g., opening files, accessing contact information, accessing a camera on the client device 130, and so on. . . . In particular embodiments, when the requested permissions 174 have been requested, and a response specifying a set of accepted permissions 176 has been received from the user, the set of accepted permissions 176 may be compared to the set of requested permissions 174. If the sets are the same, then the installation process may continue, and the App Manager 180 may invoke an installer 182 to install the application package 172. Ex. 1003, 8:67–9:22 (emphasis added). That is, the set of permissions to be checked are obtained by the App Manager once the download of the application package to be installed is initiated. See id. at 8:59–61 (“when the download is initiated by a request sent from the client system 130 to the server 162, the server 162 may send the requested object, e.g., the download page 168 or the application package 172, back to the client system 130”). And these permissions relate to operations that the installed applications may perform, e.g., opening files, accessing contact information, accessing a camera on the client device. Id. at 9:6–7. These permissions may also indirectly determine whether the installation client can install that app. See id. at 9:33–38. There is no suggestion in Pasha, however, that these permissions have anything to do with the host application, i.e., the second software application. said second software application is eligible to use capabilities of the installation client.” RMTA 25; see also Ex. 1001, 15:11–14 (“The installation client, upon receiving an instant install link, checks the eligibility of the caller and if identified as eligible continues the process of downloading the app.”). Pasha does not teach or suggest checking eligibility of its host application in any way or at any point. Moreover, as Patent Owner points out, Pasha’s App Manager performs the eligibility check after it downloads the app package, further supporting that Pasha’s eligibility check has nothing to do with the host application.9 Dr. Almeroth testifies that “Pasha discloses the App Manager 180 confirming that it has obtained the required permissions, which, in [his] opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand may include inter alia that the ‘second software application’ (e.g., the host application invoking the app manager) is eligible to use its capabilities.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 68. Dr. Almeroth fails to cite any supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statement. Id. Because we find no basis in the record for Dr. Almeroth’s conclusion, we give little weight to this testimony.” slip op. at 40

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Almeroth testifies that “Pasha discloses the App Manager 180 confirming that it has obtained the required permissions, which, in [his] opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand may include inter alia that the ‘second software application’ (e.g., the host application invoking the app manager) is eligible to use its capabilities.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 68. Dr. Almeroth fails to cite any supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statement. Id. Because we find no basis in the record for Dr. Almeroth’s conclusion, we give little weight to this testimony. 9 During oral argument, Petitioner pointed us to disclosure in Pasha that teaches that the permission dialog may be displayed to the user at different points in the download process. Tr. 47:24–48:8 (citing Ex. 1003, 22:21–42). As Patent Owner pointed out, this disclosure was not relied up on by Petitioner in its papers and is new evidence. Id. at 51:19–22; Paper 46, 4. Petitioner’s argument based on this new evidence is therefore forfeited. But even if we were to consider the cited disclosure from Pasha, it still only suggests that permissions need to come from the server after the download process has been initiated, and are therefore, unrelated to the host application. See Ex. 1003, 22:46–49 (“the requested permissions may be downloaded prior to downloading the application or may be extracted from the application package”). 24, 2022) (precedential) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). As the Board explained in Xerox, such expert testimony “is particularly problematic in cases where, like here, expert testimony is offered not simply to provide a motivation to combine prior-art teachings, but rather to supply a limitation missing from the prior art.” Id. (citing Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 11,157,256 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Berkheimer · Enfish · Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,157,256
• Nintendo Co., Ltd. / Nintendo Of America Inc. v. Polaris Powerled Technologies, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Oct 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00778 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 15, and 16 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, optics or a related field, and approximately three years of experience in the fields of visual displays, circuit design, and related technologies.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–25). Petitioner states that the Board adopted this formulation in IPR2020-01289, Paper 9, 8–9 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2021). Id. Petitioner also asserts that “[o]ther formulations are also possible but, even if adopted, they would not materially change the analysis or the outcome.” Id. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill without agreeing to it.” Prelim. Resp. 1. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, and, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “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’ arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “On the current record, we find that, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Gettemy, Kerman, Rosenzweig, Whitted, and Bell teach this limitation and has provided sufficient rationale to combine the references. First, we credit Dr. Baker’s testimony that “notwithstanding that the system in Gettemy will not permit the user to set the slider below the lower end of the displayed range . . . nothing in Gettemy states that the purpose of summation of the minimum value of the brightness range is to ensure that the final display brightness value used to control the brightness of the display meets a predetermined desired level of brightness.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 324. Thus, Petitioner relies on Whitted and Bell to teach this limitation. As for Patent Owner’s arguments that Whitted and Bell provide “redundant” functionality, we disagree on the current record. Petitioner explains the benefits of adding the functionality from Whitted and Bell as a backstop and to compensate for degradation of conventional displays. Pet. 71–72. Moreover, Dr. Baker provides supporting testimony and citations to additional references in support of Petitioner’s motivation to combine the references, and, accordingly, we disagree with Patent Owner that there is no evidence to support Petitioner’s 15 Patent Owner argues that the Board’s decision in IPR2018-01262 is instructive. Prelim. Resp. 69. We disagree. That decision described several deficiencies in the Petition relating to the “dark level bias” limitation (see IPR2018-01262, Paper 14, 12–16), and Patent Owner oversimplifies the Board’s findings by quoting from one paragraph in the decision. contentions. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 336 (citing Ex. 1019, 1020, 1021). In addition, Patent Owner’s arguments that Whitted and Bell do not disclose the “dark level bias” address Whitted and Bell individually, rather than on the combination as proposed by Petitioner, with Gettemy, Kerman, and Rosenzweig, and are therefore not persuasive on this record. The parties may wish to further develop the record as to the foregoing issues during trial.” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted

    “Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Gettemy, Kerman, and Rosenzweig teach this limitation and has provided sufficient rationale to combine the references. Petitioner’s arguments that sliders were “commonly used” is supported by the disclosure in both Kerman and Rosenzweig. Ex. 1014, 39 (Kerman describing that a slider is “a popular user interface”); Ex. 1015, 44 (Rosenzweig describing a slider as “a familiar user interface element used in all major software programs”). Petitioner relies on Kerman and Rosenzweig to explicitly explain how Gettemy’s conventional slider is implemented. Pet. 57. Patent Owner’s arguments largely address the references individually, rather than on the combination as proposed by Petitioner, where Kerman and Rosenzweig are relied upon for the underlying technical functionality of Gettemy’s slider. See Soft Gel Techs., Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., 864 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We find persuasive Dr. Baker’s testimony that “[a]n ordinarily skilled artisan, seeking to implement the brightness control system of Gettemy, would thus have been motivated to rely on the teachings of Kerman and Rosenzweig to better understand how to implement the slider controls in Gettemy, including the precise formula that produces the exact display brightness values exhibited in Gettemy.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 319. Further, we disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner and Dr. Baker have made up an equation. The equations relied upon by Petitioner are directly from the Kerman and Rosenzweig references. See Pet. 57, 58, 62–64. Based on our review and consideration of the current record, we determine that, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Gettemy, Kerman, and Rosenzweig teaches limitation 1(c) and has provided reasons sufficiently supported by factual underpinnings to combine the reference teachings with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,223,117
• Snap Inc. v. You Map Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 31, 2023 · IPR2022-00568 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Feldman and Jackson, or Feldman, Jackson, and Rush; the contingent motion to amend is granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus two years’ work or research experience with location-based content delivery and/or visualization.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19– experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Shamos, testifies that he “generally agree[s]” with Petitioner’s proposed articulation, and provides substantially the same expression of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Shamos Decl. ¶¶ 30–31. In this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Although Patent Owner appears to argue that applying the preference factors to a general score does not encompass weighting the general score’s components (see, e.g., id. at 10–12; Sur-reply 13–16), this is not reflected in Patent Owner’s proposed construction (PO Resp. 12). Patent Owner’s construction provides no limitation on how the preference factors are applied to a general score. See id. To the extent Patent Owner argues that the phrase “applied to,” as recited in the claim, excludes such component-based weighting, we disagree. Rather, the record better aligns with Petitioner’s argument that “applied to” involves a linear combination of values, which could be the values of the general score’s components. See Pet. 30–31. Petitioner’s position is supported by the plain language of the claim, the ’727 patent’s discussion of weighted aggregation, and Mr. William’s testimony—all of which indicate that weighting the component scores is encompassed by claim 1. As for the plain language, the claim does not define how the factors are “applied to” the general score. Rather, the claim only recites that they are. In the context of the claim, the preference factors are applied to the general score. Patent Owner does not dispute this. PO Resp. 12. Claim 1 further recites that the customized score is based on the application of the preference factors to the general score. Ex. 1001, 23:14–27. We note that the generate the combined ranking, which is then used for the recited selection. Beyond that, the claim does not specify how the two rankings are used or how the combined ranking must be generated. Thus, under the claim’s plain language, the customized score can be used to rank the posts and is based on the general score. Id.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “adequately supported. We find that Mr. William’s declaration is adequately supported. This is not case where an expert “does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Rather, Mr. Williams adequately supports his testimony about the second preference factor with reasoning based on Jackson’s teachings about how the social-network distance is used to weight the global score. See, e.g., Williams Decl. ¶ 133 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 4A, 16:23–25, 58–60). weighting criteria can be used together. Id. ¶¶ 147–149 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:57–44:22, 5:53–58, 9:54–67, 13:17–22, 17:47–67). Mr. Williams’s analysis relies on Jackson’s discussion of using multiple factors to score a post. Ex. 1006, 17:47–55, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147; see also Pet. 42–43; Reply 9. Mr. Williams also cites Jackson’s discussion of how social-network distance and geographic distance can be used together. Williams Decl. ¶ 147 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:57–4:22). We agree with Petitioner that Jackson adequately supports this part of Mr. Williams’s analysis. Reply 7–9. Specifically, Jackson discloses that a determination may use social-network distance to “modify the criteria” that it uses to provide posts to users. Ex. 1006, 3:66–4:1, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Jackson further explains how geographic distance can be used in addition to other criteria: “Transmitting the post to the second computing device may be dependent upon determining that the criteria is met and determining that the posting location is within the threshold distance.” Id. at 4:19–22 (emphasis added), cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. This is consistent with Jackson’s teaching that a post may be recommended based on several factors and for several reasons. Id. at 17:47–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Also, Jackson explains how the global score, which Petitioner mapped to the recited “general score,” is used to generate a post’s score: “[A] particular post’s global score . . . is multiplied by, divided by, or summed with a distance between” a user and the post’s author. Id. at 9:54–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 148. Jackson weights a post’s global score against a position of the posts author in a social graph. Id. at 9:25–53. Mr. Williams testifies that it is obvious and conventional to generate the modified scores embodiment. Williams Decl. ¶ 144. This is supported by Jackson. In another example cited by Petitioner, Jackson multiplies a post’s global score by a geographic distance to generate a personal score. Id. at 21:60–22:5, cited in Pet. 37, 39, 43. Thus, Petitioner has shown Jackson teaches or suggests applying two different sets of preference factors to a post’s global score. Pet. 41 (citing Williams Decl. ¶ 144). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that neither Petitioner nor” slip op. at 31

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner that Jackson adequately supports this part of Mr. Williams’s analysis. Reply 7–9. Specifically, Jackson discloses that a determination may use social-network distance to “modify the criteria” that it uses to provide posts to users. Ex. 1006, 3:66–4:1, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Jackson further explains how geographic distance can be used in addition to other criteria: “Transmitting the post to the second computing device may be dependent upon determining that the criteria is met and determining that the posting location is within the threshold distance.” Id. at 4:19–22 (emphasis added), cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. This is consistent with Jackson’s teaching that a post may be recommended based on several factors and for several reasons. Id. at 17:47–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Also, Jackson explains how the global score, which Petitioner mapped to the recited “general score,” is used to generate a post’s score: “[A] particular post’s global score . . . is multiplied by, divided by, or summed with a distance between” a user and the post’s author. Id. at 9:54–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 148. Jackson weights a post’s global score against a position of the posts author in a social graph. Id. at 9:25–53. Mr. Williams testifies that it is obvious and conventional to generate the modified scores embodiment. Williams Decl. ¶ 144. This is supported by Jackson. In another example cited by Petitioner, Jackson multiplies a post’s global score by a geographic distance to generate a personal score. Id. at 21:60–22:5, cited in Pet. 37, 39, 43. Thus, Petitioner has shown Jackson teaches or suggests applying two different sets of preference factors to a post’s global score. Pet. 41 (citing Williams Decl. ¶ 144).” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,616,727 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,616,727
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Causam Enterprises, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00404 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13–15, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Ehlers and Rose, and over Chen, Benson, and Rose.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the evidence and arguments of record, in this Decision we apply the same plain and ordinary meaning we applied in the Decision to Institute, where we further clarified “revenue grade metrology to include measurement techniques and meters that measure power consumption with sufficient accuracy to be used in revenue collecting applications.” See Dec. to Inst. 8–9. To the extent the entire phrase “at least one power consuming device has an actual value based on revenue grade metrology” requires further clarification, we find this phrase to mean that the actual value of a power consuming device is determined by applying techniques and/or meters that measure power consumption with sufficient accuracy to be used in revenue collecting applications.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We understand Petitioner’s argument to be that in circumstances where customer billing occurs, a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to use revenue grade meters, such as those disclosed by Rose. Rose recognizes the need for a revenue grade power meter that measures and records high-speed electrical events along with revenue metering functions in a meter provided to a customer used for billing. Ex. 1006, 1:66–2:9. Ehlers discloses examples in which node 1.10C includes a metering module and performs control functions and metering functions, while communicating with the programming device over a two-way communications channel. Ex. 1005 ¶ 178, Fig. 2D. Ehlers discusses an “always on” system that allows utility 1.06 “to know exactly how much load is available from each participating end use device 1.08 at a customer site 1.04.” Id. ¶ 96. The utility may aggregate the load up to a desired combined total, or may target specific loads and manage demand by getting verification of control requests as curtailment commands are initiated. Id. Utility 106 can then pass detailed load curtailment data to back-office billing programs at the utility where credits can be applied to consumer bills commensurate with their contributions. Id. In view of these disclosures in Ehlers, we agree with Petitioner that, in applications where customer billing occurs, a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to use a revenue grade meter, such as that taught by Rose, at a load control node, as taught by Ehlers, with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Petitioner’s arguments as to measurement and verification are persuasive. Patent Owner contends that Ehlers includes “issuing a rebate based on the measured usage while the device was operational, and the period of time that power was cut off . . . assumes the forecasted power savings is accurate . . . and fails to show any confirmation of the power savings by ‘measurement and verification’” (PO Resp. 16–17). Patent Owner’s arguments overlook other disclosure in Ehlers. In particular, Ehlers discloses that, upon receipt of a PROGRAM generated supply request, gateway node 1.10D first takes a whole house meter reading and reports the demand and consumption status of each controlled device 1.08 to system 1.02, then controls devices 1.08 in accordance with the Curtailment ID and Device Identities in the supply request, and at the end of the curtailment re enables devices 1.08 and reports the whole house demand and consumption to system 1.02. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 136–138, 140, 142, 144. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that the difference between the consumption reported at the beginning of the supply request and at the end of the supply request execution is the actual measured and verified curtailment, a measurement that confirms the actual reduction in power.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “g) Summary of Claim 1 Findings Having considered the arguments and evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Ehlers and Rose and that their combined teachings would have disclosed or suggested all the limitations of claim 1.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,396,592 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,396,592
• Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00342 · APJ Phillip A Bennett · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 10 would be obvious over Lebrun and Wang.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “review is under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To institute an inter partes review, the information presented in the Petition must show “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).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The prior art of record also reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.” Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Patent Owner is correct that Dr. Lieberman’s CV on its face does not include two years in a position titled as software developer, web-based developer, or the like. See generally Ex. 1004. Dr. Lieberman, however, has a degree in “Informatique” from the University of Paris VI (Sorbonne), as Patent Owner acknowledges (Prelim. Resp. 34), and this degree is in addition to Dr. Lieberman’s Bachelor of Science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Ex. 1004, 12–13. This University of Paris VI (Sorbonne) degree is additional education beyond the required bachelor’s degree and could have substituted for some amount of professional experience, as we note in our determination of the level of ordinary skill for this institution decision in Section II.A. slip op. at 42

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted

    “creation message to the group-surfing server 140 to create a group-surfing session (Ex. 1005, 32:9–11), a second web client 110 can “add itself to the session” by sending “a session-join message 151 to the group surfing server 140” (id. at 33:2–3). The session creation message sent by second web client, which corresponds to the recited guest device, is sufficient to teach or suggest detecting an activation associated with the synchronized browsing session at this preliminary juncture. Lebrun differs from the detecting limitation in that it does not expressly describe that the session creation message is sent by activating a hyperlink. However, Wang’s description of a second client device joining a group session via the myURL address is sufficient at this preliminary stage to address the deficiency in Lebrun. On this preliminary record, Petitioner’s showing of a rationale to combine Lebrun and Wang is also sufficient for purposes of institution. Specifically, the proffered reasoning that utilizing Wang’s designated URL address to activate a session join invitation would enable Lebrun’s group-surfing server to coordinate and manage the group-surfing session and further Lebrun’s goal of providing improved group access to web sites (see Pet. 25), is sufficient at this early stage. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s showing as to this limitation. See generally Prelim. Resp.” slip op. at 18

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,527,591

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.