• Unified Patents Inc. v. William GreciaRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2016 · IPR2016-00789 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Unified Patents’ rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petition did not sufficiently show the claimed token correspondence or GUI and API.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 4 Wieder, U.S. Patent No. 8,001,612 B1, issued Aug. 16, 2011 (Ex. 1007). 5 Wiser, U.S. Patent No. 6,385,596 B1, issued May 7, 2002 (Ex. 1008). 1988). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3

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

    “a password or e-mail, not just any password or e-mail automatically satisfies the recited membership verification token. To satisfy the recited membership verification token, the password or e-mail must correspond to the digital media, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 12 and 15. See also Inst. Dec. 7 (construing the claim phrase “the request comprising a membership verification token provided by a first user, corresponding to the encrypted digital media” such that the language “corresponding to the encrypted digital media” modifies the membership verification token). This is supported by the specification of the ’555 patent, which teaches that “an identifier for the digital media is stored in a database with another database of a list of associated tokens for cross-reference identification for verification.” Ex. 1001, 8:52–55 (emphasis added); see also id. at 8:19–21 (“Subsequently, the membership verification token is authenticated at step 604. The authentication is performed in connection with a token database.”).” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “a password or e-mail, not just any password or e-mail automatically satisfies the recited membership verification token. To satisfy the recited membership verification token, the password or e-mail must correspond to the digital media, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 12 and 15. See also Inst. Dec. 7 (construing the claim phrase “the request comprising a membership verification token provided by a first user, corresponding to the encrypted digital media” such that the language “corresponding to the encrypted digital media” modifies the membership verification token). This is supported by the specification of the ’555 patent, which teaches that “an identifier for the digital media is stored in a database with another database of a list of associated tokens for cross-reference identification for verification.” Ex. 1001, 8:52–55 (emphasis added); see also id. at 8:19–21 (“Subsequently, the membership verification token is authenticated at step 604. The authentication is performed in connection with a token database.”).” slip op. at 5

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

    “the admitted prior art” For the asserted grounds based on DeMello, Petitioner relied on either DeMello or the admitted prior art as teaching the recited “membership verification token . . . corresponding to the encrypted digital media.” Pet. 17–21, 52. For the asserted grounds based on Pestoni, Petitioner relied on either Pestoni or the admitted prior art as teaching the recited “GUI” and “API.” Id. at 33; see id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1009, Exhibit D). We denied institution of these asserted grounds because we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding the teachings of DeMello or Pestoni, either alone or in combination with the admitted prior art. slip op. at 3

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,402,555
• Unified Patents Inc. v. William GreciaRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2016 · IPR2016-00602 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Unified Patents’ rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution on the DeMello- and Pestoni-based grounds challenging claim 1.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “argument for ‘requesting the query data.’” Req. Reh’g 8 (emphasis omitted). According to Petitioner, “[t]he Petition certainly offers reasons to combine with Wieder for the token database . . . , but [the requesting step] doesn’t require combination because it is obvious from Pestoni alone.” Id. at 9. We disagree with Petitioner’s contention. As we noted in our Institution Decision, an obviousness analysis requires “‘some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Inst. Dec. 14 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Even if the recited requesting step “doesn’t require combination” with another patent or printed publication, Petitioner did not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered modifying Pestoni to arrive at the claimed invention. See id. For instance, Petitioner merely asserted, without further explanation, that “it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to implement Pestoni with a request and corresponding reception.” Pet. 49. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness as to the recited requesting step. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.” slip op. at 7

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,887,308
• American Megatrends, Inc. / Micro-Star International Co., Ltd et al. v. Kinglite Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01079 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–45 are unpatentable: claims 1–40 and 44 as obvious over either PC Tools and Gerace or LogoMania, and claims 41–43 and 45 as obvious over either specified combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
  • ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied
  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteDecided for petitioner

    “We first note that proposed claim 46 recites a “profile,” a term that is broader than a “user profile” and is not specifically defined. In addition, the meaning of the language in proposed claim 46 “wherein the computer system [that displays the image] characterizes the profile under the operating system environment” is unclear. Although the operating system may be a Windows OS, as Patent Owner argues, Patent Owner does not cite to a description concerning what it means for the computer system, i.e., the system that displays the image, to “characterize[s] the profile” or what steps the computer takes to characterize the profile. Id. at 8–9. Instead, Patent Owner argues that a service center provides additional content based on the user system and profile. Id. at 9. That language, however, is not recited in proposed claim 46. We deny the Motion to Amend on this basis as well.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “It was not Petitioner’s responsibility to monitor whether Patent Owner moved for Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission. However, we also are troubled by Petitioner’s failure to seek a conference with the Board at the time of the deposition. Although Petitioner argues it could not have moved to quash the deposition because the notice was signed by lead counsel, Christopher Frerking (Reply to Opp. To Mot to Exclude 4), it appears that Petitioner’s counsel was aware that Mr. Summerfield would conduct the cross examination at least several days, and possibly several weeks, before the deposition took place. Hr’g Tr. 47, 49. Petitioner does not allege any prejudice as a result of Mr. Summerfield conducting the cross examination or argue that Mr. Summerfield behaved improperly during the deposition. Mot. To Exclude 4. Instead, Petitioner contends we should exclude the evidence as a matter of policy to demonstrate that our rules concerning pro hac vice admission must be taken seriously and to discourage others from acting in a similar manner, particularly in the case of deposition testimony and arguments that become part of the trial record. Id. at 4–6.8 Petitioner contends that allowing the deposition to take place did not cure its objection to the deposition. Reply to Opp. To Mot. To Exclude. 1–2. Dr. Kaliski’s deposition took place on January 8, 2016. Petitioner could have opposed Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission until January 16, 2016. However, notwithstanding Mr. Summerfield’s conduct, to which Petitioner objected, Petitioner did not oppose Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission. Had Petitioner opposed Mr. Summerfield’s admission on the basis that he conducted the deposition without proper authorization, the issue could have been addressed earlier in the proceeding and another deposition scheduled, if it was determined that Mr. Summerfield would not be admitted and the deposition transcript would not be entered. Instead, Petitioner elected to delay the matter until the last possible date for filing a Motion to Exclude. Thus, even if Petitioner’s objection was not cured when Petitioner permitted the deposition to proceed without contacting the Board, Petitioner’s subsequent failure to oppose Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission pro hac vice implies at least some degree of consent. The parties conduct in this case does not warrant excluding Dr. Kaliski’s deposition transcript from evidence. We do not condone Patent Owner’s unreasonable delay in seeking pro hac vice admission of Mr. Summerfield, and under other circumstances our ruling might be different. However, in this case, the absence of prejudice and Petitioner’s failure to” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,373,498 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,373,498
• Duodecad It Services Luxembourg S.à.R.L. / Friendfinder Networks Inc. et al. v. Wag Acquisition, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 20, 2016 · IPR2015-01036 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 14, and 21 were not shown unpatentable because the references lack per-user server tracking.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “A given reference is publicly accessible upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been [1] disseminated, or [2] otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it. SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194–95 (Fed. Cir. 2008. Even though Chen issued prior to the USPTO PAIR system, Chen FH was and remains easily requisitioned by any interested person from the USPTO by making the appropriate request and paying the appropriate fee.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that initially operating Chen in rush mode would cause unstable operation. The only evidence Patent Owner has presented is the declaration testimony of Dr. Mayer-Patel, which was weakened as a result of cross-examination.  For example, Dr. Mayer-Patel admitted that simply setting the water marks to different values would avoid the potential hysteresis instability. See Ex. 1016, pp. 64−66. Further, both Chen and Chen FH disclose that transmission starts in rush mode. Chen states: “transmission occurs in rush mode when the amount of data falls below the lower water mark, i.e., there is not enough data in the client agent packet buffer (33).” Ex. 1004, 6:43–45. Chen FH states at page 86 in the “open file” line: “read data from disk and rush them to CA” (emphasis added). We credit Dr. Polish’s testimony that “Chen and the Chen File History teach that the mode that is used at the start of transmission is the rush mode.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 58. Dr. Mayer-Patel was cross-examined regarding “thrashing.” When asked about setting gamma levels to achieve a stable system, Dr. Mayer- Patel answered that he would set the gammas to different levels for transitioning from rush to normal modes than for transitioning from normal to rush modes. Ex. 1016, 66:9–18; see Ex. 1005, 86–87 (discussing gamma values); Reply 14 n.2 (discussing hysteresis). Based on the testimony of Dr. Mayer-Patel and the evidence cited by Petitioner (Reply 14–15), we conclude that one of ordinary skill would have known how to set gamma levels defining mode transitions to provide the appropriate amount of hysteresis to prevent thrashing, e.g., in the manner that a thermostat hysteresis is set to avoid too rapid a cycling of a furnace. We find that if Chen were operated initially in “rush” mode, it would” slip op. at 29

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that initially operating Chen in rush mode would cause unstable operation. The only evidence Patent Owner has presented is the declaration testimony of Dr. Mayer-Patel, which was weakened as a result of cross-examination.  For example, Dr. Mayer-Patel admitted that simply setting the water marks to different values would avoid the potential hysteresis instability. See Ex. 1016, pp. 64−66. Further, both Chen and Chen FH disclose that transmission starts in rush mode. Chen states: “transmission occurs in rush mode when the amount of data falls below the lower water mark, i.e., there is not enough data in the client agent packet buffer (33).” Ex. 1004, 6:43–45. Chen FH states at page 86 in the “open file” line: “read data from disk and rush them to CA” (emphasis added). We credit Dr. Polish’s testimony that “Chen and the Chen File History teach that the mode that is used at the start of transmission is the rush mode.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 58. Dr. Mayer-Patel was cross-examined regarding “thrashing.” When asked about setting gamma levels to achieve a stable system, Dr. Mayer- Patel answered that he would set the gammas to different levels for transitioning from rush to normal modes than for transitioning from normal to rush modes. Ex. 1016, 66:9–18; see Ex. 1005, 86–87 (discussing gamma values); Reply 14 n.2 (discussing hysteresis). Based on the testimony of Dr. Mayer-Patel and the evidence cited by Petitioner (Reply 14–15), we conclude that one of ordinary skill would have known how to set gamma levels defining mode transitions to provide the appropriate amount of hysteresis to prevent thrashing, e.g., in the manner that a thermostat hysteresis is set to avoid too rapid a cycling of a furnace.” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We find that ISO-11172 would have been well known to those of ordinary skill. It was at the time of the ’839 patent already published and utilized. ISO-11172 demonstrates that it was known to encode frames at constant and variable bit rates. We are not persuaded that Chen’s focus on variable bit rates teaches away from the use of either constant or variable bit rates. The fact that a standard, published before Chen, describes the use of both in detail suggests that it was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. We therefore conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of evidence of record that Chen describes the constant bit rate feature of claims 3, 10 and 17. We find that Petitioner has produced sufficient evidence to establish that claims 3, 10, and 17 are unpatentable over Chen, Chen FH, and ISO-11172. See Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–70).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,364,839 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,364,839
• Unified Patents Inc. v. William GreciaRehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 13, 2016 · IPR2016-00600 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied on the DeMello-based anticipation and obviousness grounds because the petition did not sufficiently show the claimed verification token or reason to modify DeMello.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent 3 Wiser, U.S. Patent No. 6,385,596 B1, issued May 7, 2002 (Ex. 1008). 4 Cooper, U.S. Publ’n No. US 2009/0037388 A1, published Feb. 5, 2009 (Ex. 1009). Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3

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

    “For the asserted grounds based on DeMello, Petitioner relied on either DeMello or the admitted prior art as teaching the recited “verification token . . . corresponding to the digital content.” Pet. 17–21, 52. We denied institution of these asserted grounds because we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding the teachings of DeMello, either alone or in combination with the admitted prior art.” slip op. at 3

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

    “noted in our Institution Decision, an obviousness analysis requires “‘some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Inst. Dec. 12. With respect to claim elements [C], [D], and [G], Petitioner did not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered modifying DeMello to arrive at the claimed invention. See id. at 13; see also Req. Reh’g 8 (“A claim can be rejected as obvious over a single reference by identifying a teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) to modify the single reference to fall within the scope of the claim.”). For example, with respect to claim element [D], Petitioner merely asserts that “DeMello describes a browser, which clearly implies or suggests a GUI.” Req. Reh’g 8; see also id. at 12 (“one of skill in the art, analyzing the ‘browser’ in DeMello, would understand that these browsers obviously have a GUI”); Pet. 23 (“it is obvious that the browser of the reader mentioned in DeMello includes a GUI, since browsers provide a GUI”). We are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness over DeMello alone as to claim element [D]. Similarly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness over DeMello alone as to claim elements [C] and [G]. See Req. Reh’g 10–11; Pet. 20–21, 26–28.” slip op. at 7

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “DeMello, Petitioner contends that we “overlooked the Petition’s argument that the claims are obvious in view of DeMello alone, without any of the additional, admitted prior art.” Req. Reh’g 7 (emphasis omitted). According to Petitioner, “the admitted prior art was added, as background information,” and the Petition showed that claim elements [C], [D], and [G] are obvious over DeMello alone. Id. at 8, 10, 12. This is a new argument, which does not address what was overlooked or misapprehended in our Decision, and is not appropriate in a request for rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For instance, the heading at page 15 of the Petition reads “Ground 1: Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over DeMello (EX1006) in view of the admitted prior art” (emphasis omitted). None of the other headings in the Petition alleges that any of the claims are unpatentable as obvious over DeMello alone. Nor has Petitioner directed us to any portion of the Petition presenting such argument.” slip op. at 7

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,533,860
• Micron Technology, Inc. / SK Hynix, Inc. v. Elm 3ds Innovations, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00703 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, including for failure to establish the required partitioned control layer.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “4. Conclusion “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); see also Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., No. 2015-1693, 2016 WL 2620512, at *6 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) (“It was [Petitioner]’s burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”) (internal quotation marks removed). Thus, Petitioner must explain how the combination of Hsu and Sakuta would have rendered the independent claims 1 and 5 unpatentable. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate sufficiently that Petitioner’s proposed combination of Hsu and Sakuta would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art a control layer of the stacked memory integrated circuit partitioned into a plurality of vertically interconnected circuit block stacks as required by independent claims 1 and 5. Accordingly, after considering the information presented in” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged patent “would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, material science, or equivalent thereof, and at least 3–5 years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., semiconductor processing.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58; see Pet. 6–7 (relying on Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Patent Owner does not offer any contrary explanation regarding who would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged patent. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on our review of the challenged patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the challenged patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “required partitioned circuit control layer of a stacked memory integrated circuit, Petitioner asserts, without further explanation or analysis, that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that the stacked memory integrated circuits disclosed by Hsu, e.g., ROM and SRAM, are often partitioned into a plurality of circuit blocks. Ex. 1002 at ¶147.” Id. at 33 (quoting ¶ 147 of Dr. Franzon’s testimony (Ex. 1002)). Although Petitioner quotes Dr. Franzon’s testimony for support, Dr. Franzon’s testimony is unavailing because it is conclusory. Dr. Franzon’s testimony merely states, without providing further analysis or evidence, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized stacked memory integrated circuits are often partitioned. As such, Dr. Franzon’s testimony does not disclose the facts underlying his conclusion or provide sufficient analysis or evidence to support his conclusion. Accordingly, Dr. Franzon’s testimony is entitled to” slip op. at 14

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

    “In referring to “the block-based design” or “the block-based memory design” of Sakuta, Petitioner fails to distinguish between Sakuta’s various embodiments, only one of which even arguably discloses a partitioned control circuit (embodiment shown in Figure 3) for the reasons previously discussed. See id. at 33–34 (discussing embodiments shown in both Figures 1 and 3). This further demonstrates shortcomings in Petitioner’s position relying on Sakuta’s purported “memory circuit design that is partitioned into a plurality of circuit blocks” for a partitioned two-dimensional control circuit. Id. Moreover, Petitioner does not address, much less sufficiently explain, why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined, with Hsu’s threedimensional memory structure, Sakuta’s embodiment that includes a control circuit in the memory block (as shown in Figure 3), rather than Sakuta’s embodiment that includes the memory blocks controlled by a shared control circuit (as shown in Figure 1). See generally id. at 25–30, 35. For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s reasons to” slip op. at 20

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,791,581
• Micron Technology, Inc. / SK Hynix, Inc. v. Elm 3ds Innovations, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00706 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 5, 12, 36, 54, 78, 113, 116, 133, or 136 were unpatentable as obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); see also Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It was [Petitioner]’s burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner then asserts, without further explanation or analysis, that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that the integrated circuits are often partitioned into a plurality of circuit blocks.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 132 (claim element 1c) 8). Although Petitioner cites Dr. Franzon’s testimony regarding how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Bertin ’945, Dr. Franzon’s testimony is unavailing because it is conclusory. Dr. Franzon’s testimony merely states, without providing further analysis or evidence, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the integrated circuits are often partitioned into a plurality of circuit blocks. As such, Dr. Franzon’s testimony does not disclose the facts underlying his conclusion or provide sufficient analysis or evidence to support his conclusion. Accordingly, Dr. Franzon’s testimony is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioner’s reliance on Sakuta’s two-dimensional memory circuit design for the requisite partitioned control layer, however, does not distinguish sufficiently between Sakuta’s embodiment with a two-dimensional matrixed memory circuit that shares a control circuit (as shown in Sakuta’s Figure 1) and Sakuta’s embodiment with a two-dimensional matrixed memory circuit in which each memory block includes a control circuit (as shown in Sakuta’s Figure 3). See id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1067, Abstract, 5:52–54 (discussing embodiment shown in Fig. 1), 8:49–60 (discussing embodiment shown in Fig. 3), Fig. 3). Thus, Petitioner relies both on Sakuta’s embodiment in which the control circuit arguably seems to be partitioned (Figure 3) and on Sakuta’s embodiment in which the control circuit is not partitioned (Figure 1). See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 6:34–35 (indicating the “control circuit” is the “timing and address generator of FIG. 1”), 8:49– 60 (indicating Fig. 3 shows “each memory block of this embodiment” as being “equipped with . . . the control circuit”). Petitioner’s reliance on both embodiments—only one of which arguably has a partitioned control 15 circuit—undermines Petitioner’s position that its proposed combination of Bertin ’945 and Sakuta would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the required partitioned control layer of a stacked memory integrated circuit. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Petitioner’s proposed combination of Bertin ’945 and Sakuta would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the required partitioned circuit control layer of a stacked memory integrated circuit.” slip op. at 15

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

    “In referring to “the block-based design” or “the block-based memory design” of Sakuta, Petitioner fails to distinguish between Sakuta’s various embodiments, only one of which even arguably discloses a partitioned control circuit (embodiment shown in Figure 3) for the reasons previously 16 discussed. See id. at 31 (discussing embodiments shown in both Figures 1 and 3). This further demonstrates shortcomings in Petitioner’s position relying on Sakuta’s purported “memory circuit design that is partitioned into a plurality of circuit blocks” for a partitioned two-dimensional control circuit. Id. Moreover, Petitioner does not address, much less sufficiently explain, why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined, with Bertin ’945’s multichip semiconductor stack, Sakuta’s embodiment that includes a control circuit in the memory block (as shown in Figure 3), rather than Sakuta’s embodiment that includes the memory blocks controlled by a shared control circuit (as shown in Figure 1). See generally id. at 27–29, 32. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s reasons to combine explain how Sakuta would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art a partitioned control circuit.” slip op. at 16

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,791,581
• Unified Patents Inc. v. William GreciaInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2016 · IPR2016-00602 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 1 unpatentable over DeMello or Pestoni, alone or in the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “requesting inter partes review of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,887,308 B2 (Ex. 1003, “the ’308 patent”). William Grecia (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we have decided not to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer,” however, and clearly set forth a definition of the claim term in the specification. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Claim 1 requires the “credential” to be assigned to the apparatus of (a). As Patent Owner points out, the specification of the ’308 patent describes such credential as “an API Key, an Application Secret Key and could also include an Application ID,” which “[is] usually embedded in the source code of the apparatus, or stored on a remote Internet server.” Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 100[3], 10:51–56); Ex. 1003, 10:51–66. The apparatus, such as an Internet-powered desktop or a browser-based application, uses the API Key to establish a data exchange session with the API. Ex. 1003, 10:51–58. By contrast, the “credential in DeMello is assigned to the user, not the device.” Prelim. Resp. 28. As Petitioner explains, “[i]n DeMello, the reader prompts a user to provide login credentials (e.g., PASSPORTTM credentials) to connect to the PASSPORT server via the API of the PASSPORT server to authenticate the user at the PASSPORT server.” Pet. 31 (emphases added); see also Ex. 1006, 23:6–10. Further, Mr. Cherukuri characterizes the PASSPORT credentials as “user’s credentials.” See Ex. 1009 ¶ 72 (cited at Pet. 32) (emphasis added). Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Cherukuri explains persuasively how the user PASSPORT credentials in DeMello are assigned to the reader (apparatus of (a)). Based on the record presented, we are not persuaded that DeMello discloses the recited credential. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that DeMello anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 9

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

    “B. Obviousness over DeMello, Wieder, and the Admitted Prior Art Petitioner argues that claim 1 of the ’308 patent would have been obvious over DeMello, Wieder, and “the admitted prior art.” See Pet. 19– 39. Petitioner does not cite Wieder or the admitted prior art as teaching the elements found to be lacking in the above discussion with respect to DeMello. Accordingly, on this record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 would have been obvious over DeMello, Wieder, and the admitted prior art.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,887,308
• Google Inc. v. Better Food Choices LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2016 · CBM2015-00071 · APJ Minn Chung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–10 are also indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2 because the specification lacks an algorithm for the claimed correlating function.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “As an initial matter, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not met its burden of proof because Petitioner relies only on the ’115 patent and its prosecution history to argue unpatentability and does not present any other evidence, such as a witness. PO Resp. 6–7, 13–20. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has presented no evidence of unpatentability because the ’115 patent and its file history “shows the Patent Owner has a valid, issued patent and nothing more.” Id. at 7. We are not persuaded because, as discussed below, in this case we need to look only to the ’115 patent and its prosecution history to support a finding of unpatentability under §§ 101 and 112. See In re TLI Comm. LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613–14 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the patent alone is sufficient to sustain a finding of unpatentability under § 101).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “rebuttable presumption that the limitation is written in a means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). If, in addition to the word “means” and the functional language, the claim recites sufficient structure for performing the described functions in their entirety, the presumption is overcome, and § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Id. “Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the functions in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.” Id. at 1259–60.” slip op. at 28

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “with the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents on step one analysis under the Alice framework. In step one of the Alice analysis, to determine whether the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry is to ask, considered in light of the Specification, whether “their character as a whole” is directed to an abstract idea, not, as Patent Owner contends, identifying the “core invention” of the patent. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Relying on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas,” the court in Enfish clarified that a relevant inquiry in step one of the Alice framework is to ask whether the “focus” of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–59). In this inquiry, claims “directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer” are contrasted with claims “simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices” or “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.” See TLI, 823 F.3d at 612 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338). The Federal Circuit further clarified recently and described the first-stage inquiry as “looking at the ‘focus’ of the claims, their ‘character as a whole.’” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-” slip op. at 17

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of collecting and correlating information to provide personalized nutritional information of food products to shoppers into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. TLI, 823 F.3d at 613. Rather, the recited components must involve more than performance of “‘well- understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 5,841,115 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 5,841,115
• Unified Patents Inc. v. William GreciaInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 16, 2016 · IPR2016-00600 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,533,860 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’860 patent”). William Grecia (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 10, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we have decided not to institute an inter partes review. slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As Patent Owner points out, the “claims require a verification token ‘corresponding to the digital content.’” Prelim. Resp. 29. Petitioner does not provide persuasive explanation as to how a retailer password or e-mail corresponds to digital content. In fact, Petitioner does not appear to address this recited feature at all. See 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3) (a petition must identify, “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (a petition must identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and “where each element of the claim is found in the prior art,” and must explain the “relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (a petition must include a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”). As Petitioner does not identify specifically how a retailer password or e-mail in DeMello corresponds to digital content, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that DeMello discloses the recited verification token.” slip op. at 9

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

    “It is not sufficient, however, for Petitioner to demonstrate that each of the claim elements is known. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Petitioner must also provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In that regard, with respect to element [B], Petitioner argues: DeMello teaches “user authentication” and establishing a membership relationship with a retailer (left of Figure 4), which inherently would include providing a token, such as a retailer password and/or email (e.g., Amazon log-on credentials). User authentication and establishing a membership are obvious in view of the admitted prior art. The admitted prior art steps are described in the parent ‘555 Patent as verifying membership for site to buy content, and DeMello recites establishing such a membership relationship. It would be obvious to use the verification token of the admitted prior art to establish a membership relationship. Pet. 18–19. Petitioner does not, however, explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered combining DeMello and any other patent or printed publication to arrive at the claimed invention. For example, Petitioner does not explain persuasively why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “us[ing] the verification token of the admitted prior art to establish a membership relationship” in DeMello, when DeMello already teaches “establishing a membership relationship with a retailer.” See id. With respect to elements [C] and [G], Petitioner does not appear to proffer any reason for combining DeMello and the admitted prior art. See Pet. 20–21, 26–28. Finally, with respect to element [D], Petitioner merely asserts that “it is obvious that the browser of the reader mentioned in DeMello includes a GUI, since browsers provide a GUI.” Id.at 23. Again, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered combining DeMello and any other patent or printed publication to arrive at the claimed invention. Based on the record presented, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness with respect to elements [B], [C], [D], and [G]. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1, 9, and 11 would have been obvious over DeMello and the admitted prior art. See also Pet. 42 (referring to analysis of claim 1 for claim 9), 44–45 (referring to analysis of claim 1 for claim 11). Claims 2–8, 10, and 12–20 depend from claims 1, 9, or 11. We therefore also determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that these dependent claims would have been obvious over DeMello and the admitted prior art.” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot reached

    “barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because “[Patent Owner] filed and served a complaint alleging that Google infringed the ‘860 patent” and “Google, an original founding member of [Petitioner] and continuing customer of [Petitioner] (Ex. 2005), is a privy of [Petitioner].” Prelim. Resp. 41–42. Because the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, we need not address Patent Owner’s assertions that the Petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) based on privity.” slip op. at 21

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,533,860

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.