• Ebay, Inc. v. Lexos Media IP, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00336 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claim 72 under all three asserted obviousness grounds and granted eBay’s motion to join IPR2023-01000.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be authorized unless the information in the Petition and any preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’102 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented. We also grant Petitioner’s Motion.” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Owner argues that Nielsen relies on the HTML protocol and modifications would require changes to the HTML protocol to provide tooltips that appear as part of a cursor, but that Petitioner did not adequately address the real possibility of such a change. PO Prelim. Resp. 22–24. Patent Owner additionally argues that there would not have been a motivation to make changes to Nielsen, because, in Nielsen, the tooltip is not “indiscriminately and automatically displayed in response to cursor movement” but rather is displayed only after cessation of movement over a part of the display with an associated tooltip. Id. at 24 (emphasis removed). These arguments are similar to those made in the preliminary response in the 01000 IPR. See 01000 IPR, Paper 8, 57–59. In the institution decision in the 01000 IPR, we did not determine whether a likelihood of success had been shown for the Nielsen and Malamud ground, but provided initial views for the benefit of the parties, which are applicable in this proceeding as well. 01000 IPR, Paper 10, 33–35. As discussed above, we have made the decision to institute on other grounds, and we note that our institution is necessarily on all grounds in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting ... review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that Petitioner is time-barred from seeking inter partes review of the ’102 patent and is “improperly using the joinder procedure in an attempt to circumvent” the one-year time bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Opp. 1, 7–8. However, Patent Owner does not persuasively explain, and we do not discern, how filing a petition with a request for joinder properly under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) is an improper use of the joinder procedure to circumvent the one-year time bar. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (providing that joinder must be filed no later than one month after the institution date of the inter partes review for which joinder is requested and that the one-year time bar (§ 42.101(b)) “shall not apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.”)” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant,” who is the Petitioner in this proceeding. Id. Petitioner timely filed its Motion for Joinder on December 20, 2023 (i.e., within one month after the institution of the 01000 IPR on December 12, 2023). See Mot.; 01000 IPR, Paper 9; 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). As moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In deciding whether to join a case, we consider (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate, (2) whether the petition raises any new grounds of unpatentability, (3) any impact that joinder would have on the cost and trial schedule for the existing review, and (4) whether joinder will add to the complexity of briefing or discovery. Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15,4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013); Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 76 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/tpgnov.pdf. The Petition (1) is substantially identical to the 01000 IPR petition, (2) contains the same grounds based on the same evidence, and (3) relies on the same declaration of Dr. Craig Rosenberg. (Ex. 1003). Mot. 1, 6–9 & n.1. Petitioner represents that joinder will not impact the 01000 IPR schedule. Id. at 4; Reply 5. Petitioner also represents that it “will accept an “understudy” role unless and until [the 01000 petitioner] is terminated from the proceeding.” Mot. 4, 9–10. Petitioner represents that in its understudy role, it agrees that the following conditions will apply: (a) all filings by Petitioner in the joined proceeding be consolidated with the filings of the petitioner in the 01000 IPR, unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not involve the petitioner in the 01000 IPR; (b) Petitioner shall not be permitted” slip op. at 11

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 5,995,102
• Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Lexos Media IP, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2023 · IPR2023-01001 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 38, and 53 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Malamud and Malamud with Nakagawa.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information 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 institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 38, and 53 of the ’449 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “The Fintiv Memorandum states that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Fintiv Memorandum, 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”)); see id. at 7–9. The Fintiv Memorandum explains that such a stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. at 7. Here, Petitioner provides a Sotera stipulation. Pet. 63. Specifically, Petitioner stipulates that if we institute review, “Petitioner will not pursue the grounds raised, or that reasonably could have been raised, in this IPR.” Id. (referencing Sotera).” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). We apply a two-part test when evaluating whether to exercise discretion under § 325(d). See Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). Specifically, we consider: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the claimed priority date would have had experience in the fields of human factors engineering or human computer interaction. The POSITA would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, human factors engineering, or a related field and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the fields of UI design, or equivalent experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–35). At this time, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition for one of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 28; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation for the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’449 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art)” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,118,449
• Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Lexos Media IP, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2023 · IPR2023-01000 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claim 72 on all three obviousness grounds: Malamud; Malamud with Nakagawa; and Nielsen with Malamud.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “The Fintiv Memorandum states that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_ proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20 220621_.pdf. been raised before the PTAB.” Fintiv Memorandum, 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”)); see id. at 7–9. The Fintiv Memorandum explains that such a stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. at 7.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “However, as Petitioner correctly asserts, the arguments made in the 1749 IPR were markedly different from the arguments presented in this proceeding with respect to whether and how Malamud teaches “specified content information.”. Pet. 55–56. The 1749 IPR petitioner relied on information in Malamud’s transmitted message that “tells the operating system what type of cursor to display and sets forth the contents and type of information to be displayed in the cursor” (Ex. 1004, 5:49–52) for teaching the “specified content information includ[ing] information that is to be displayed on said display of said user’s terminal” (limitation c.i.2) in claim 72. 1749 IPR, Paper 21 (1744 IPR final written decision), 17. This led to a deficiency in the petition’s showing for the recitation (limitation c.ii of claim 72) that the cursor image is modified “responsive to movement of said cursor image over a display of said at least a portion of said information to be displayed on said display of said user’s terminal.” Id. at 17–19, 24–26. It was this argument in the 1749 IPR that was found to be fatal to arguments of unpatentability regarding claim 72 of the ’102 patent and an additional claim at issue in that proceeding. Id. at 25–26 (“Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated how Malamud . . . teaches or suggests this limitation because it has failed to explain how Malamud’s cursor image could exhibit movement over itself.”). Here, however, Petitioner does not rely on Malamud’s transmitted message as including the “specified content information” of limitation c.i.2 as the petition in the 1749 IPR did; rather, Petitioner here relies on the application program in Malamud as including this information. Pet. 34, 37; see infra at § II.E.2. We consider, therefore, with respect to Becton, Dickinson factor (d), this is a significant area in which there is no overlap between the arguments previously made, which were dispositive in the 1749 IPR, and the manner in which Petitioner in this proceeding relies on Malamud. Even though Malamud was before the Board in the 1749 IPR, the arguments presented in the Petition here were not previously considered by the Office.” slip op. at 10

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

    “partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information 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 institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claim of the ’102 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the claimed priority date would have had experience in the fields of human factors engineering or human computer interaction. The POSITA would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, human factors engineering, or a related field and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the fields of UI design, or equivalent experience. 3 The present record contains no evidence or argument relating to secondary considerations. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–35). At this time, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition for one of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 28; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation for the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’102 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,995,102
• 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
• Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2017-01928 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1, 2, 9, 11–17, and 21–24 are unpatentable over Burns with Uy or AlphaGrip; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable because Burns does not teach detachable paddles.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “rendered claims 3–8 and 18–20 unpatentable. Valve, 8 F.4th at 1381. The Federal Circuit reversed our determination that Burns was not prior art. Id. at 1381. The Federal Circuit also vacated our determination that Valve had failed to prove that collectively claims 1, 2, 9–17, and 21–24 were unpatentable as obvious in view of Burns in combination with either Uy or AlphaGrip. Id. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to us to consider Valve’s challenges to the patentability of claims 1, 2, 9–17, and 21–24 of the ’229 patent as obvious based on the combinations of prior art listed in the table below. Claims6 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 2, 9, 10, 14–17, 21–24 103 Burns, Uy 1, 2, 9–17, 21, 22 103 Burns, AlphaGrip Id. C. Remand Background On remand, we authorized the parties to concurrently file an opening brief and then concurrently file responsive reply briefs. Paper 44, 4. The parties agreed, and we concurred, that no new evidence would be submitted during the remand proceeding. Id. at 3. Accordingly, we decide the issues on remand based on the record that was submitted during the original trial.” slip op. at 4

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Valve contends that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have: a bachelor’s degree in an industrial design or engineering field, and approximately two years of relevant experience, for example. Alternatively, the same or an equivalent level of skill in the art could be obtained by end users or hobbyists who have substantial experience modifying or creating customized game controllers that include features to better suit their needs, even without any college education. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 11). Ironburg, without expressly defining the level of ordinary skill, contends that a college degree of the type identified by Valve is not required. See Supp. PO Resp. 4–6. Ironburg notes that the level of ordinary skill is “relatively low” and the technology involved “is simple and straightforward.” Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 21). Ironburg’s contentions regarding the level of ordinary skill are consistent with Valve’s position, id. at 6, which we apply in our analysis. D. Whether AlphaGrip Is a Prior Art Printed Publication” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We find Ironburg’s critique of Mr. Willner’s testimony unavailing. Valve persuasively responds that Mr. Willner testifies that he personally recalls reviewing AlphaGrip on the internet during 2006, which significantly predates the filing of the oldest application in the priority chain of the ’229 patent, May 22, 2013, by at least six years. Compare Ex. 1009 ¶ 3 (testifying that online publication of AlphaGrip happened in 2006), with Ex. 1001, code (60) (identifying provisional application filed May 22, 2013, as earliest-filed priority application). Mr. Willner testifies that he is the inventor and designer of the controller that is reviewed in AlphaGrip, which we find to qualify him as an ordinarily skilled artisan. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 1–3. Besides expressly testifying that he viewed AlphaGrip online during 2006, Mr. Willner also testifies in some detail about his recollection of his interactions with the author of AlphaGrip, Ryan Paul, and the events surrounding the publication of Mr. Paul’s review on Arstechnica’s website. Id. ¶¶ 4–5. Mr. Willner also reviews the version of AlphaGrip that Valve submitted as prior art and testifies that it is a true and correct copy of the review that he remembers seeing online during 2006. Id. ¶¶ 6–7. We find Mr. Willner’s testimony to be reliable in part because he recalls being “delighted” by the praise Mr. Paul lavished on the AlphaGrip controller. Id. ¶ 8. The publication of AlphaGrip marked an important event for Mr. Willner’s company. Mr. Willner states that he immediately posted a link on his own company’s website to Arstechnica’s AlphaGrip review in 2006, and his company maintains the link to Arstechnica’s review of AlphaGrip “to this day.” Id. We find that all these facts increase the probative value of Mr. Willner’s testimony on the issue of whether AlphaGrip was published and could easily have been found by interested persons during 2006. Although Mr. Willner may not have been a webpage manager for Arstechnica or be able to testify about precisely how many people accessed AlphaGrip in 2006, we find his testimony, as one of skill in the art himself to be compelling. Not only has Ironburg failed to refute any of Mr. Willner’s testimony with countervailing evidence, Ironburg did not cross-examine Mr. Willner to test his memory of the specific events set forth in his testimony. See PO Resp. 16–18 (failing to provide countervailing evidence or cite cross examination testimony).” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We also disagree with Ironburg that we should exclude as hearsay or irrelevant Dr. Rempel’s testimony on how flexible the Burns’ paddles were or the extensive body of objective evidence cited and relied upon by him to support his testimony.9 Mot. 12–13. To the contrary, we agree with Valve that Dr. Rempel may properly rely upon the cited exhibits even if they would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay because they constitute the types of information upon which an expert would reasonably rely under Fed. R. Evid. 703. Opp. 10. Accordingly, we deny-in-part the Motion to the extent that it seeks to strike or exclude testimony in Dr. Rempel’s second declaration or Exhibits 1020, 1025, 1026, 1031, 1036, 1042 cited by Dr. Rempel in support of his analysis.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,352,229 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,352,229
• Ralph Lauren Corporation v. Lexos Media IP, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01755 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 27, 33, 40, 41, 72, 81, and 82 are unpatentable under § 103; the remaining challenged claims are not determined unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “Decision issues under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Having considered the evidence of record, and for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 27, 33, 40, 41, 72, 81 and 82 of the ’449 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), but has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5–7, 12– 15, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38, 39, 53–56, 58–63, 73–75, and 77–80 of the ’449 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a master’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or a related field, or hold a bachelor’s degree in Computer 4 The record contains no evidence relating to secondary considerations. Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent and have at least two years of relevant work experience in the fields of UI [(user interface)] design and OSs.” Pet. 10–11. In the Institution Decision, we preliminary adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition, noting that the prior art in this case demonstrated the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Inst. Dec. 10 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Patent Owner does not comment on or dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and instead cites Okajima’s holding regarding the level of skill in the prior art without raising any issues regarding whether the prior art here reflects a level of ordinary skill different from that proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 10 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). We adopt Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the ’449 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Petitioner proposed construction of several claim terms in the Petition. Pet. 12–18. However, none of these claim terms require construction to resolve the controversy. Petitioner also argued for a construction of an additional term (“wherein said specified content information further comprises information to be displayed on said display of said user’s terminal”) in its Reply. Pet. Reply 13. Patent Owner contends that this argument is a new argument raised improperly for the first time in the Reply. PO Sur-Reply 10–11. We agree. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), a reply “may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding ... patent owner response.” See also Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)). Therefore, we will not address the new construction proposed for this claim term.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “A petitioner must choose which grounds of invalidity to assert in the petition and “the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Intelligent Bio- Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Circ. 2017) (a petitioner is foreclosed from “shifting” in post-petition arguments to a new theory of prima facie obviousness based on a different passage of a prior art reference than was used in the petition); see PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019,5 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie 5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated case of unpatentability.”); Trial Practice Guide Update August 2018,6 14 (same). Therefore, we evaluate Petitioner’s arguments with respect to limitation [c.i] relying upon Malamud’s message relating to a preview cursor in Malamud to teach the “specified content information.” Patent Owner does not make any arguments relating to whether Malamud’s message, in view of the teachings of Anthias, teaches limitation [c.i] of claim 1. See, e.g., PO Resp. 9–18.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,118,449 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,118,449
• Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00949 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 and 15–18, and 20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–12, 15–17, 19, and 20 as anticipated by Tosaki; claims 1–12, 15–18, and 20 as obvious over Enright and Tosaki.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “This Motion has no meaningful distinction from the Motion filed in IPR2016-00948, and we incorporate that analysis here. Consequently, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion.” slip op. at 4

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is that the ’770 patent expresses a clear intent to disavow controllers having a recessed portion that does not receive a user’s fingers. See PO Resp. 17–22. Stated in a positive sense, Patent Owner argues that the ’770 patent expresses a clear intent to cover only recessed portions that receive a user’s fingers. Patent Owner does not identify, nor do we discern, any explicit disclosure in the ’770 patent that the invention includes only recessed portions that receive a user’s fingers. The description that “preferably” each elongate member is mounted in a recess such that a user’s fingers may be received in the recess is an exemplary disclosure of a preferred embodiment. See Ex. 1011, 1:62–67. Likewise, the disclosures that the elongate members (e.g., paddles 11) are mounted within recesses so that a user may engage the elongate members with the tips of the fingers are exemplary. See Ex. 1011, 2:21–25, 3:39–44, Fig. 3. Consequently, the ’770 patent does not express a clear intent to limit the claimed invention to recessed portions that receive a user’s fingers. See e.g., SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed.Cir. 2001); see also Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed.Cir. 1988) (“Although the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.”). In light of the disclosures above, the ordinary meaning that a recessed portion is an indentation is consistent with the Specification.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 9–10) that nothing in claim 1 precludes the back of Tosaki’s steering wheel 14 from corresponding to the back of the controller as claimed. Claim 1 is an open-ended claim, so that additional components like base casing 10 with its bottom plate 11 are not precluded. Patent Owner’s assertion is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. c) Conclusion Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Tosaki anticipates independent claim 1.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We accept Patent Owner’s uncontested assertions regarding the education level of the inventors; however, this information provides an incomplete picture because other factors are involved. See e.g. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (enumerating a non-exhaustive list of six factors that are a guide to determining the level of skill in the art). For example, one concern is the type of problems encountered in the art, and the problem solved by the ’770 patent is but one type of problem encountered. Tosaki describes that removing a hand from the controller to manipulate switches makes prompt reaction difficult and degrades usability, and describing that repositioning the user’s hands can affect comfort. Ex. 1002, 1:54–67, 2:19–23. Tosaki describes an apparatus that permits manipulation of a plurality of switches while holding the controller. Id. at 3:20–23. Tosaki’s solution also includes switches on the back of the controller (shift levers) that are accessible to a user’s fingers. Id. at 3:36–4:8. Enright describes that controller had become more complex in that the number of functions and user input devices increased to the point that user’s had difficulty moving a finger to a desired button. Ex. 1003 ¶ 2. Enright describes that movement between input devices can be difficult. Id. at ¶¶ 3–4. As a solution, Enright disclosed a device that permits selection of discrete button commands without looking at or moving fingers from buttons. Id. ¶ 5. Enright’s solution includes switches (mode switches 32, 34) added to the underside (back) of the controller to reside near a user’s fingers for easy operation. Id. at ¶ 32. Enright also discloses that these switches may be located elsewhere is ergonomically desired. Id. In light of this, the prior art of record demonstrates that switch position on the controller, usability, and comfort were known problems in the art. Further, prior solutions included placing switches to be easily accessible to a user’s finger or thumb, and placing switches so that those switches are accessible without removing a finger or thumb from another switch. In particular, these solutions placed controls on the back of the controller to be accessible to a user’s fingers. The technology involved was placement of switches in ergonomically desired locations that permit usability.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 9,089,770 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,089,770
• Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00948 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable: Tosaki anticipates them, and Enright with Tosaki also renders claim 20 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In our Decision to Institute, we explained that a preliminary response cannot serve as an effective objection for two reasons.2 Dec. 4–5 (entered on September 27, 2016). First, objections must be made after institution of trial. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) (objections are due ten days from institution of trial). Second, an objection and a preliminary response may not be combined into a single document. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (prohibiting combined documents).” slip op. at 5

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “The Petition fails to address a claimed characteristic of the elongate members (flexibility). See PO Resp. 39–41 (arguing that Enright does not disclose elongate members that are flexible as claimed). This cannot be corrected in Petitioner’s Reply. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (a reply may not raise a new issue or belatedly present evidence); 35 U.S.C. § 312 (a)(3) (requiring petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (a petition for inter partes review must identify how the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds on which the petitioner challenges the claim and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Paper 39, 2 (pointing out that Petitioner is making a new argument).20 Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Enright and Tosaki. The same is true of claims 2–11, 13, 16, and 17 by virtue of their dependence from claim 1. 20 Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s contention could not have been addressed earlier because the Board did not explicitly construe this claim limitation. Petitioner’s burden is not alleviated by the lack of a claim construction by the Board.” slip op. at 38

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “In our Institution Decision, we observed that the Petition does not explain persuasively how observations from a UK patent examiner, which presumably are based on UK law and not United States law, are of use in our proceeding. Dec. 4. Petitioner asserts that Mr. Donohoe must be a person of ordinary skill because the level of ordinary skill is low, and because the UK Intellectual Property Office employed Mr. Donohoe to examine the video game controller art. Pet. Reply 16–17. Petitioner chose not to address our concern regarding the distinctions between United States and UK law. Because of those distinctions, Petitioner’s assertions and evidence with regard to Mr. Donohoe are entitled to little or no weight. This shortcoming is not fatal to this ground of unpatentability because, as explained below, the prior art of record is reflective of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 39

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that the level of skill in the art is relatively low and that “less than a year of experience or other training in controller assembly or tooling is required.” PO Resp. 34; Ex. 2002 ¶ 30 (Patent Owner’s expert opining that the level of skill is “no more than a year of experience or other training in controller assembly or tooling”). Patent Owner bases this level of skill on the education level of the inventor and the type of problems encountered in the art. PO Resp. 35. Regarding the education level of the inventors, Patent Owner provides evidence that the named inventors have degrees in unrelated fields. Id. (citing Ex. 2008, 3; Ex. 2009, 4). Patent Owner asserts the problem solved was that users of conventional game controllers were at risk of hand strain or injury from having to operate many different controls on the front of the controller with only a user’s thumbs. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 10; Ex. 1001, 1:33–40, 3:56–61). Petitioner does not contest the education level of the inventors or the problem solved by the ’525 patent. Pet. Reply 15–16. Rather, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner has taken the illogical position that the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art are maximum levels of experience or training rather than minimums. Id. To the extent that Patent Owner’s assertion suggests that the level of skill may not exceed a year of experience or other training in controller assembly or tooling, we disagree. Patent Owner does not cite, nor are we aware, of any legal precedent supporting the assertion that education and experience levels are maximums that must not be exceeded. Regarding the problem solved by the ’525 patent, the portions cited by” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,641,525 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,641,525
• Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00259 · APJ Richard E Rice · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Dietzen I and II, Ciaffone, Laster, Pneumatic Conveying, and Toth; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art is unreasonably high, and we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of our Final Written Decision. While Petitioner’s definition requires five years of design experience at the bachelor’s degree level of education, Patent Owner’s definition does not require any design experience at all. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art designs devices, and, thus, actively monitors the relevant technical literature, rather than is merely familiar with devices (e.g., an operator or a manufacturer), as proposed by Patent Owner. See Ex. 1034 ¶ 28; Ex. 1005, 2:62–64 (indicating that those skilled in the art would understand “that the critical cone angle will vary depending upon the material being conveyed”). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner’s proposal to construe “non-free flowing drill cuttings” as drill cuttings that do not generally flow freely by gravitational force. There is insufficient support in the Specification for that proposal. The Specification does not distinguish between different types of screened drill cuttings, for example, screened drill cuttings that generally flow freely by gravitational force and those that do not. While the Specification describes screened drill cuttings in various ways, it is always referring to the same material. For example, the Specification refers explicitly to “thick, heavy pastes which are normally difficult to move and 12 See Ex 1005, 1:37–39 (calling drilling fluid a special type of oil used as a lubricant.) handle” (Ex. 1005, 1:31–32), “[screened] cuttings . . . transported ashore in the form of a very thick heavy paste” (id. at 1:44–48), “thick heavy paste material (e.g., drill cuttings)” (id. at 1:66–67), “a thick heavy paste” (id. at 2:3), “a non-free flowing paste” (id. at 2:9–10), “[t]he non-free flowing paste may be a thick and/or heavy paste or clay like material, e.g. oil rig drill cuttings” (id. at 2:13–14), and “a thick heavy paste” (id. at 3:10–11). As such, the Specification characterizes screened drill cuttings as a thick heavy paste as well as a non-free flowing paste and, thus, considers a thick heavy paste to be a non-free flowing paste. We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of “non-free flowing drill cuttings” is “screened drill cuttings, i.e., screened material, generated by the drilling of an oil well, including a mixture of earth and drilling fluid or oil.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments do not respond adequately to Petitioner’s persuasive obviousness rationale that a POSITA would have substituted a positive-pressure conveyance system in place of the negative-pressure conveyance system of Dietzen I and II because negative pressure systems are generally limited to shorter distances and lower material volumes than positive systems. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments do not address sufficiently Ciaffone’s teaching that a positive-pressure vessel with a conical bottom section can be used to convey materials without the need for bins, hoppers, hydraulic rams, screw feeders, conveyor belts, and the like. See Ex. 1006, 1:70–2:6. As explained by Petitioner, Dietzen II uses an auger to augment use of negative pressure for moving settled materials horizontally from the bottom of a vessel. Pet. Reply 15; Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 154:6–155:5. In contrast with Dietzen II’s relatively low-pressure vacuum system, a positive- pressure system such as taught by Ciaffone, with an operating pressure of up to 6.89 bar, blows materials out of the conical bottom section of the vessel. See supra Section II.C.1.b. Patent Owner further argues that a “POSITA would have discounted positive pressure given th[at] non-free flowing drill cuttings cannot be fragmented.” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2057 ¶¶ 44, 150). We find this argument unpersuasive because Ciaffone’s blow vessel does not require fragmentation of the material to be conveyed. Rather, Ciaffone teaches compaction of the material in a tightly knit unit that can be acted upon by the full force of the pressurized air, in contrast with dispersion of the waste such that air is diffused among the separated particles resulting in diminution in the applied air pressure conveying the total charge. Ex. 1006, 3:11–19. Further, Pneumatic Conveying teaches that “small capacity blow vessels are designed on the basis of conveying material as a series of discrete plugs rather than as a continuous stream.” Ex. 1009, 282, Fig. 7.32. Pneumatic Conveying further explains: “As such, the capacity of the vessel is selected such that on discharge a plug is formed which is just long enough to prevent blocking [of the conveying line].” Id. Pneumatic Conveying discloses that “[i]f the material to be conveyed is unusually cohesive, a plug forming system will yield good results” and, “[a]s the plugs are relatively impermeable, they remain separated even over long conveying distances.” Id. at 346. Based on these teachings, a POSITA would not have understood that it was necessary to fragment non-free flowing drill cuttings, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument. For the reasons given, Petitioner has provided a sufficient reason with rational underpinning for combining Dietzen I and II, Ciaffone, Laster, and Pneumatic Conveying. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 23

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Pneumatic Conveying does not provide information on “anything close to ‘non-free flowing [oil well drill/drill] cuttings’ or a ‘thick, heavy paste,’” and, thus, a POSITA “would not look to designs presented in Pneumatic Conveying.” Ex. 2057 ¶ 185. We give little weight to this testimony because, as discussed above, we credit Dr. Carson’s testimony that Pneumatic Conveying identifies hundreds of materials, including paste and cohesive material. See supra Section II.C.1.e(2). We also credit Dr. Carson’s testimony that Pneumatic Conveying explains that pressure vessels increasingly were being used to convey materials with “bad” flow properties, and that “Pneumatic Conveying would have also shown those of ordinary skill in the art that pneumatic conveying with a positive pressure system would be an effective way to transport non-free flowing drill cuttings, including in the form of a paste or sludge.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 124. Dr. Brown also testifies that the information in Pneumatic Conveying with respect to mass flow concerns granular solids. Ex. 2057 ¶ 185 (citing Ex. 1009, 411). He further testifies that because “the flow behavior of nonfree flowing [oil well drill/drill] cuttings is distinct from that of granular solids . . . a person of ordinary skill in the art would gain no insight in designing a vessel for paste to produce mass flow from a vessel designed to contain granular solids.” Id. We give little weight to this testimony because Dr. Brown does not address all of the information in Pneumatic Conveying that is relevant to mass flow, as discussed further below. In contrast with Dr. Brown, Dr. Carson testifies: “As explained in Pneumatic Conveying, those of ordinary skill in the art knew that the cone angle is an important variable to adjust in order to achieve mass flow.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 144 (citing Ex. 1009, 280–282, 410–420; Ex. 1046, 68–74, 147– 151). Consistent with Dr. Carson’s testimony, the ’018 Patent discloses that “[i]t is well known that the critical cone angle [to achieve mass flow] will vary depending upon the material being conveyed [and] as such would be well understood by those skilled in the art.” Ex. 1005, 2:61–63. We credit the testimony of Dr. Carson over the conflicting testimony of Dr. Brown because Dr. Carson’s testimony addresses the full Pneumatic Conveying disclosure, and is consistent with that disclosure, while Dr. Brown’s testimony does not address the full Pneumatic Conveying disclosure, and is not completely consistent with that disclosure. For example, under the subheading “Factors influencing blow vessel performance,” Pneumatic Conveying teaches that “[t]he increased use of blow vessels for feeding materials with ‘bad’ flow properties necessitates the selection of a suitable cone angle.” Ex. 1009, 279. Pneumatic Conveying further explains that “[v]essels with incorrectly designed cone angles will result in either ‘ratholing’ or ‘bridging’ problems.” Id. at 279, Fig. 7.30. These teachings of Pneumatic Conveying are not limited to granular solids, contrary to Dr. Brown’s testimony.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,544,018 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,544,018
• Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Robert Bosch LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 30, 2017 · IPR2016-00039 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 12, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Prohaska combined with either Kotlarski or Merkel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s argument is improper because it goes to an artisan’s expectation of success in making the claimed combination, and should have been in the Petition. Paper 57, 2 (referring to Pet. Reply 6:16–20). Petitioner’s argument properly responds to Patent Owner’s argument as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Further, we agree with Petitioner that Petitioner could not have reasonably anticipated that Patent Owner would make such argument when it is contradicted by the disclosure of the ’588 patent itself. Paper 59, 2. For that reason, Petitioner’s counter argument in the Reply was not required to be in the Petition.” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “In light of this, Patent Owner has not persuaded us that Pylon had opportunity and motive to develop Mr. Merkel’s testimony through cross-examination as Petitioner would have here. See United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 856 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); United States v. Omar, 104 F.3d 519, 522 (1st Cir. 1997) (“And, the evidence in question being hearsay, it was the defendants’ burden to prove each element of the [804(b)(1)] exception they invoked.”). Accordingly, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the exception of Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) applies. The analysis in IPR2016-00038 of whether Mr. Merkel’s testimony qualifies for the residual hearsay exception is applicable here. Petitioner has demonstrated that Mr. Merkel’s testimony from the Pylon litigation (Ex. 2005, 210–264) is inadmissible hearsay, and with respect to this evidence, Petitioner’s Motion is granted. b) Mr. Kashnowski’s testimony Our analysis in IPR2016-00038 is applicable here, and consequently, with respect to this evidence (Ex. 2007 ¶ 6, second, third, and fourth sentences) Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is denied. c) Related Portions of Patent Owner’s Response We do not exclude any portion of Patent Owner’s Response, but will not consider any citations to the excluded portion of Exhibit 2005.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “CREDIBILITY OF DR. DAVIS There is no meaningful distinction between the argument on this issue here and that in IPR2016-00038. See PO Resp. 18–22; Pet. Reply. 20–21. Here, as in IPR2016-00038, the factors discussed detract slightly from Dr. Davis’s testimony, but not so much to warrant that we give his testimony overall little or no weight. Our analysis below reflects this determination.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelOther

    “LEVEL OF SKILL We do not discern a meaningful difference between the argument on this issue here and that in IPR2016-00038. See PO Resp. 1–2; Pet. Reply 1– 4. Here, as in IPR2016-00038, the prior art of record is reflective of the level of skill in the art. We address what was known in the art in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,228,588 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,228,588

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.