• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00502 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 1–16 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, and Rapparini.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1–16 of the ’923 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). One may show support for the claims of a later application by showing that a single, earlier application provides written description support for the claims. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, MBH v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a patentee “cannot distinct previous applications”). Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 10

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

    “7. Analysis: Reasons to Combine the References Petitioner shows sufficiently that Yoakim, Jarisch and Rapparini are “analogous art in the field of portion capsule beverage extraction, each disclosing an invention that may be applied in automatic coffee/espresso machines.” Pet. 43. “Yoakim and Jarisch both improve the optimization of beverage parameters in a single-serve brewing system, and use optical codes read by the machine to achieve this.” Id. “Rapparini further improves the the wall of the capsule body like those used in Yoakim and Jarisch.” Id. at 43–44; see id. at 50–51, 53–54 (Petitioner’s further argument that Rapparini discloses “an optimized capsule structure that is stiffer and more stable” by virtue of radially spaced and vertically oriented ribs and grooves, where the vertically oriented grooves are free from extending entirely to the bottom region of the capsule). Petitioner directs us to additional evidence tending to establish that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been prompted to modify Yoakim’s device, to include the code placement of Jarisch and the grooves and ribs of Rapparini, to arrive at the claimed invention with an expectation of success. Id. at 44–48.” slip op. at 27

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,994,923
• Snap Inc. v. You Map Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 31, 2023 · IPR2022-00568 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 10,616,727 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,616,727
• Chongqing Yanmei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Terves, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–61 and 63–81 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Doud anticipates claims 19–61 and 63–75.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . 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 set forth below, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’740 patent. Accordingly, we grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther

    “the application describe the claim limitations exactly,” the application must demonstrate to persons of ordinary skill in the art that the applicants invented a composition including those limitations. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262. On its face, the range of “at least 0.01 wt. %” encompasses a range that is broader than 0.01–35 wt. %, and Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from merely a disclosure of 35 wt.% that the inventors were in possession of the entire claimed range for copper, cobalt, or nickel in the magnesium composition.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedOther

    “On this record, the term “at least 0.01 wt. %” in the ’740 patent encompasses values for nickel, copper, and cobalt that are higher than the 35 wt. % (nickel and copper) and 20 wt. % (cobalt) limits outlined in the parent and grandparent applications. Accordingly, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 19 of the ’740 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the filing dates of its priority applications. Challenged claims 20–61 and 63–75 depend from claim 19 and there is no argument presented that these claims have independent written description support in Doud. For example, there is no evidence presented that any of these dependent claims narrow the ranges for each of copper, nickel, and cobalt recited in in the ’295 application for these claims.7 Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we apply Doud as prior art to challenged claims 19–61 and 63–75.” slip op. at 12

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

    “as the ’740 patent. For example, Doud and the ’740 patent both disclose a method of forming a novel magnesium composite that includes melting an AZ91D magnesium alloy containing 90 wt. % magnesium, 9 wt. % aluminum, and 1 wt. % zinc. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47; Ex. 1001, 21:43–51, 22:48–53, 33:32–43, 34:9–12. To this alloy is added either 7 wt. % nickel or 10 wt. % copper. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:48–51, 22:53–56, 33:35–36, 34:12–13. These additives are mixed in the magnesium alloy at a temperature that is less than the melting point of copper or nickel, and the casting is then cooled. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:51–54, 22:56–58, 33:35, 34:12-13. Doud reports that nickel and copper, when added to molten magnesium, will form Mg2Ni and CuMg2 intermetallic, galvanically-active, in situ precipitates. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12–13. Doud discloses that the dissolution rate of the resulting casting material is either 325 mg/cm2-hr (nickel) or 50 mg/cm2-hr (copper) in a 3% KCl solution at 90° C. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:60–62, 22:61–63, 33:41–43, 34:15–17. Doud also discloses that the average particle diameter of the additives used in the invention is generally “at least about 0.1 microns” and “typically no more than about 500 microns.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Petitioner explains how the identified disclosures of Doud anticipate independent claim 19. Pet. 39–40. Petitioner also identifies where the limitations of dependent claims 20–61 and 63–75 are disclosed in Doud. Id. at 41–45. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s anticipation arguments with respect to claims 19–61 and 63–75, apart from arguing that Doud is not prior art to these claims. Prelim. Resp. 27–39. demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 19–61 and 63–75 are anticipated by Doud.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,740
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Aug 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00455 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–29 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Perego and JESD79-2 obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”), weigh in favor of denying institution in view of the district court litigation. Prelim. Resp. 53–56. A Memorandum from Director Vidal titled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)6 provides that “the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure 9. Petitioner has submitted such a stipulation for all claims in this proceeding, which are all of the claims of the ’215 patent. Ex. 1093; Paper 8 at 1; Paper 9 at 1. Thus, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5

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

    “In evaluating arguments under Section 325(d), we use a two-part framework, determining, first, “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.” Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). If either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, we then determine “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Id.” slip op. at 6

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

    “On this record, we are sufficiently persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Perego and JESD79-2. As Petitioner correctly points out (Pet. 32), Perego discloses using DDR2 memory devices. Ex. 1071, 10:56–59 (“Other memory devices may be implemented on module 400, for example, Double Data Rate 2 (DDR2) DRAM devices and Synchronous DRAM (SDRAM) devices.”). On this record, we find this teaching to use DDR2 sufficiently supports Petitioner’s rationale to combine Perego with JESD79-2, which is the JEDEC DDR2 SDRAM Specification. Ex. 1064, 1 (cover page); see also Prelim. Resp. 44 (parenthetical noting that “JESD79-2 is a specification for individual DDR2 SDRAMs”). As to Patent Owner’s argument that Rambus memories lack a chip select network (Prelim. Resp. 25–26), the reference on which Patent Owner relies discloses that chip select information is still used in the particular Rambus devices described. See Ex. 1069, 11 (“[I]n the Rambus bus organization, all addresses, commands, data, and chip-select information are sent on the same bus lines.”), 12 (“[T]he example system uses a total of nine (9) lines to carry all necessary information, including addresses, commands, chip-select information, and data.”). Thus, on this record, Patent Owner’s focus on the lack of a chip select network, which is not recited in the claims of the ’215 patent, appears misplaced. We address Patent Owner’s more specific arguments below in the discussion of individual claim recitations.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Claim 21 is method claim and recites similar structure in the preamble. Petitioner cites this claim language in support of its position that a rank can have just one memory device. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1001, 37:32–38 (portion of claim reproduced above)). On this record, we determine that the claim language supports Petitioner’s position. Claim 1 recites “at least one first memory integrated circuit in the first rank and at least one second memory integrated circuit in the second rank.” This language is met if there is one memory integrated circuit in each rank because “at least one” includes just one. On this record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that this claim language “do[es] not define the term ‘rank’” but, rather, “provide[s] context that a claimed ‘buffer’ can be, but need not be, coupled to multiple memory devices in the rank.” See Prelim. Resp. 9–10. Claim 1 recites “a buffer coupled between the at least one first memory integrated circuit and the memory bus, and between the at least one second memory integrated circuit and the memory bus,” and it further recites “enabl[ing] communication of the first data burst between the at least one first memory integrated circuit and the memory controller through the buffer” and “enabl[ing] communication of the second data burst between the at least one second memory integrated circuit and the memory controller through the buffer.” If there is only one memory device in each rank, then the buffer will only be connected to the one memory device in each rank. If two memory devices are the “at least one first memory integrated circuit in the first rank” then the buffer would be “coupled between the [two memory devices] and the memory bus.”” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,858,215
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Aug 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00454 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would show at least one claim obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)6 provides that “the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district 2 US 7,363,422 B2, issued Apr. 22, 2008 (Ex. 1071). 3 Joint Electron Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC) DDR2 SDRAM Specification (JESD79-2), September 2003 (Ex. 1064). 4 US 2006/0277355 A1, published Dec. 7, 2006 (Ex. 1073). 5 US 7,024,518 B2, issued Apr. 4, 2006 (Ex. 1078). 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure 9. Petitioner has submitted such a stipulation for all claims in this proceeding, which are all of the claims of the ’417 patent. Ex. 1093; Paper 8 at 1; Paper 9 at 1. Thus, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5

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

    “In evaluating arguments under Section 325(d), we use a two-part framework, determining, first, “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.” Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, 7 Chapter 31 (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319) relates to inter partes review. IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). If either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, we then determine “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Id.” slip op. at 6

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

    “competent evidence” to show that “the overall CAS latency of the memory module is greater than an actual operational CAS latency of each of the memory devices,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 44. We disagree. Petitioner presents detailed testimony from Dr. Wolfe explaining how Perego’s registered data transfers would have introduced delay. In particular, Dr. Wolfe, citing Perego’s disclosures of data latches and an internal clock to generate synchronizing clock signals (Ex. 1071, 12:65–13:5, 17:61–63, Fig. C), provides the following testimony: A Skilled Artisan would have understood from these disclosures that Perego’s latching of the data signals and the use of internal synchronizing clock signals adds a predetermined amount of time delay for each data transfer through the buffer because the output of the latch needs to be in synchronization with an internal clock. A Skilled Artisan would have understood that such registering of the data signals would require the addition of a fixed time delay, such as one clock cycle, for each registered data transfer through the circuitry with respect to the actual operational CAS latency of each of the plurality of memory integrated circuits. Ex. 1003 ¶ 360. Dr. Wolfe further explains how Perego’s “latching delays in the buffer device of Perego increase the overall CAS latency of the memory module compared to the CAS latency of the memory devices.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 362 (citing Ex. 1071, 12:65–13:5, 18:65–19:3, Figs. 5B, 5C). On this record, we find Petitioner’s evidence sufficiently persuasive to show that Perego teaches that “data transfers through the circuitry are registered for an amount of time delay such that the overall CAS latency of the memory module is greater than an actual operational CAS latency of each of the memory devices,” as recited in claim 1. We are sufficiently persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions for the” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,093,417
• Sophos Ltd. / Sophos Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00491 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 8, 9, 14, or 15 were unpatentable over Liu, Tuvell, and Kester.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner does not make a sufficient showing that its proposed combination of Liu, Tuvell, and Kester meets the limitations of independent claim 1 that include a “central server.” We accordingly conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Liu, Tuvell, and Kester.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner

    “There are a number of difficulties with Petitioner’s position, which appears to be conceived with the aid of hindsight to reconstruct the claimed invention. See Sensonics Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“The invention must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made.”). First, Petitioner considers each of the mirrored servers in its conception of Liu also to correspond to the claim’s recited “threat servers.” Pet. 50. As Dr. Orso testifies, “Liu’s mirror servers are effectively identical to each other” and “even if Liu’s mirror servers could be interpreted as teaching the claimed threat servers . . . [,] there is no ‘central server’ in Liu’s peer-to-peer network of mirrored servers.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 70.” slip op. at 22

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached

    “H. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) As noted above, the ’721 patent is the subject of parallel proceedings in the form of the related litigation. Supra, § I.E. Patent Owner asks that we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition based on the state of the related litigation. Prelim. Resp. 4–21. Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent discipline, and at least two years’ worth of experience developing computer networking or network architecture, or a Master’s degree in a related field.” Pet. 9. Petitioner adds that, alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art “could have four or more years of work experience in computer networking and in the development of client-server systems.” Id. Petitioner supports its articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art with testimony by Dr. Newman. Ex. 1003 ¶ 17. Patent Owner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill is generally similar, and supported with testimony by Dr. Orso, who characterizes the parties’ respective positions as having “minor variations.” Prelim. Resp. 27; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 39–42. According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in an accredited program of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, or a similar discipline, and have 2-3 years of practical work experience in the general fields of electrical engineering, computer science, networking communications, and/or device and network security.” Prelim. Resp. 27. Patent Owner adds that “[m]ore advanced degrees and/or training in a related discipline can compensate for shorter work experience.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). But we note that we would reach the same ultimate conclusion not to institute inter partes review if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal. See Prelim. Resp. 27 (Patent Owner stating that “[a]lthough Patent Owner’s [person of ordinary skill in the art] definition differs slightly from Petitioner’s, Patent Owner’s positions and arguments do not change based on which [person of ordinary skill in the art] definition the Board applies”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 42 (Dr. Orso testifying that the “minor variations” in the parties’ proposals “would not alter [his] opinions.”).” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,413,721
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00358 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 103 over Wise and Shaffer, with Burrows added for claims 3–15; the Board did not reach the Kovatch-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing.” Pet. 4–5. Petitioner adds that “[m]ore education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Mr. Lipoff supports this articulation, and neither Patent Owner nor Mr. Winters proposes any different articulation. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 74; Ex. 2063 ¶ 41 (Mr. Winters stating factors considered in defining a person of ordinary skill in the art, without stating the education or experience held by such a person). Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, uncontroverted, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by Mr. Lipoff’s testimony, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party proposes any express construction of any term. Pet. 5 (“Petitioner does not believe that any express constructions are necessary to resolve the invalidity issues presented in this petition”); PO Resp. 1 (“Patent Owner believes that claim construction is unnecessary and all terms of the Challenged Claims should be given their plain and ordinary meanings.”). On the record before us, we do not find it necessary to construe any term for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Ex. 1001, 19:64–20:5. For this “sequential access” limitation, Petitioner relies on Shaffer’s disclosure of sequentially accessing websites according to a list, until a user is satisfied with what has been returned or the list is exhausted. Pet. 55–56. Supported by Mr. Lipoff’s testimony, Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine Shaffer’s sequential access technique with Wise’s system “because it would have been beneficial to maximize the likelihood of finding the desired information more quickly and efficiently use computing resources, by searching in the most likely sources first, and proceeding through Wise’s index list until the user is satisfied or the list is exhausted.” Id. at 56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 243). Patent Owner does not specifically dispute Petitioner’s reasons for effecting the combination of teachings from Wise and Shaffer, which we find sufficiently articulated and supported; instead, Patent Owner contends that the combination does not meet the sequential access limitation. See PO Resp. 78 (“Assuming, arguendo, this is a combination a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would consider, this combination does not disclose this claim limitation.”). Patent Owner makes two points in this respect. First, Patent Owner reiterates its contention, addressed above, that “Mr. Lipoff expressly does not rely on the Wise search index (option 1) for his opinion of the Wise disclosure of a plurality of websites.” PO Resp. 78. For the reasons we discuss in the preceding subsection, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s argument relies on “a misinterpretation of out-of-context deposition testimony.” Reply 6. As Petitioner adds, Wise discloses that an “index may be stored as one or more documents preferably in a hierarchical order” and “[t]he user may use the navigation commands to traverse the index and invoke a link to a source document.” Id. at 8; Ex. 1007, 10:7–10. Second, Patent Owner takes the position that the claim language precludes user interaction or instructions during the process of the sequential search. See PO Resp. 80. But Patent Owner provides insufficient evidentiary support for that position, and we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s interpretation invokes a negative limitation that is unsupported by the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language. See Reply 8. “While a negative limitation need not be recited in the specification in haec verba, there generally must be something in the specification that conveys to a skilled artisan that the inventor intended the exclusion.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). In this instance, both parties and both experts agree that the specification of the ’941 patent is silent with respect to user participation during sequential access. PO Resp. 81 (Patent Owner asserting that “[t]he ’941 patent is silent as to the participation of a user in the sequential search process”); Ex. 2063 ¶” slip op. at 25

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on these facts, we find insufficient reason to exclude user interaction from the plain and ordinary meaning of the sequential access limitation. We thus determine that Shaffer—which clearly involves user interaction, see Ex. 1011, 6:3–29—meets the limitation. We also determine that Petitioner articulates sufficient reason, supported by rational underpinning, to achieve the combination of teachings it proposes. We accordingly determine that Petitioner makes a sufficient showing for the sequential access limitation. 5 In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner asserts that “[a]s discussed in the [Patent Owner Response], the ’941 specification teaches against the notion of user interaction in the claim limitations involving sequentially accessing.” Sur-Reply 6 (citing PO Resp. 80–81). We disagree with this characterization of the Patent Owner Response, and treat this assertion as a new argument impermissibly raised for the first time in the Sur-reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply”). Regardless, even if we considered this argument, we would find it unpersuasive. Based on our independent review of the specification of the ’941 patent, in agreement with both experts, and in agreement with other statements of both parties, we find the specification to be “silent” on user interaction. See also Tr. 48:25–49:23 (Patent Owner conceding at oral hearing that the specification “is silent” on this issue).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,881,941 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,881,941
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00523 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–2 as obvious over Wise and Shaffer, and claims 3–15 as obvious over Wise, Shaffer, and Burrows.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Lipoff, contends that a POSITA “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing,” wherein “[m]ore education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40, 61–74). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. See generally PO Resp. 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’402 patent was filed before March 16, 2013, the effective date of the relevant amendment, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies. claimed invention because, based on the record, this proposal is consistent with the ’402 patent, the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lipoff.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim construction. See Pet. 5; See generally PO Resp. We do not perceive a need to construe any claim terms of the ’402 patent to resolve the disputed issues before us. See, e.g., 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) (holding that “only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”))); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 10

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

    “While a negative limitation need not be recited in the specification in haec verba, there generally must be something in the specification that conveys to a skilled artisan that the inventor intended the exclusion.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Here, Patent Owner does not provide sufficient evidentiary support that conveys an intended exclusion of user interaction during sequential access. Instead, both parties and both experts merely point out that the specification of the ’402 patent is silent with respect to user participation during sequential access. PO Resp. 73 (Patent Owner asserting that “the ’402 patent is silent as to the participation of a user in the sequential search process”); Ex. 2063 ¶ 289 (Mr. Winters testifying that “there is no disclosure in the specification of the ’402 patent related to user interaction in the sequential search process”); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner asserting that Patent Owner is “[i]mporting a requirement that user interaction is precluded by the claims—a negative limitation, when the specification is wholly silent on it”); Ex. 2061, 107:15–22 (Mr. Lipoff agreeing that “there’s no specific mention of the user interacting” in the portion of the specification related to “the sequential search”). As the Federal Circuit explained in Novartis, silence is not sufficient support for a negative limitation. See Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. interaction from the plain and ordinary meaning of the sequential access limitation. Instead, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Shaffer for disclosing the sequential access limitation as recited. See Ex. 1011, 6:3–29. In particular, Shaffer discloses determining whether a system is at the end of a list of sites to visit, and sequentially visiting the sites until the user is satisfied. Ex. 1011, 6:3–29. Furthermore, Wise’s system accesses web pages relating to a subject phrase to retrieve user-requested information. Ex. 1007, 6:31–49. We credit the supporting testimony of Mr. Lipoff, which is consistent with the teachings of Wise and Shaffer, in which he testified that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Wise’s system that accesses websites to retrieve user-requested information based on Shaffer, resulting in a system that accesses websites sequentially/subsequently until information is found. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 200. We disagree with Patent Owner that the ’402 patent’s specification “teaches against the notion of user interaction in the claimed ‘sequentially accessing’ operation,” which “is time consuming and inefficient.” PO Resp. 73–75. A given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, which “does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reason, supported by rational underpinning, to effect the combination of teachings it proposes. We credit Petitioner’s contention, which is supported by Mr. Lipoff’s testimony, that a POSITA would have been motivated “to apply Shaffer’s sequential search technique when retrieving information from websites in Wise’s ranked index” in order to “maximize the likelihood of finding the desired information and efficiently use computing resources by searching in slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,185,402 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,185,402
• Crowdstrike, Inc v. Open Text Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00289 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 over the petition’s § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that CrowdStrike would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “even if we institute trial, there has been no actual denial of a stay as contemplated by Fintiv to weigh this factor against exercising discretion to deny institution. See Fintiv at 6–7. Conversely, we recognize that Patent Owner cites certain routine (nonbinding) Board decisions that have weighed this factor in favor of discretionary denial, even in the absence of any stay motion. See Prelim. Resp. 5–6. While we have considered such decisions, we find them of limited relevance to the specific facts before us, as applied within Fintiv’s binding guidance. We treat this factor as neutral.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Ex. 1002, 633–634. Divorced from the context of the rejection the Examiner was reconsidering, namely over the combination of Dozortsev and Kester, this argument conceivably supports Patent Owner’s position. But within that context, the Examiner evidently found convincing that it would not have been obvious to modify Dozortsev to automate mask generation in light of Kester’s teachings. It is not apparent that the Examiner considered whether it would have been obvious to modify Kester to incorporate such automation, particularly in light of the teachings of an additional reference that was not before the Examiner. See id. at 802–803 (Examiner declining to provide specific reasons for allowance). That is, we agree with Petitioner that the challenges it advances over Kester and Honig are different in character from the combination of Dozortsev and Kester that the Examiner considered. See Pet. 6. We necessarily consider the Applicant’s argument against the backdrop of the Dozortsev-Kester rejection that was at issue during prosecution, not how that argument might be differently perceived if it had been made with respect to the Kester-Honig challenge presented by Petitioner. We conclude that substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office, such that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied. We accordingly do not reach the second part of that framework in our evaluation, and we decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 21

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

    “f. Summary For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kester and Honig.” slip op. at 41

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). But we note that we would reach the same ultimate conclusion to institute inter partes review if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 65 (Dr. Medvidovic testifying that the “minor variations” in the parties’ proposals “would not alter [his] opinions”).” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,418,250
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00149 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–13 and 15–17 are unpatentable: the Board found them obvious over the listed Nerone-based and Zhang-based combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “had, at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design. Lack of work experience could have been remedied by additional education and vice versa.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 38–42). Patent Owner contends this is a similar definition as “provided by Petitioner” but Petitioner’s definition is “overbroad in several respects, as explained by Dr. Ducharme,” including allowing an individual with no experience in LEDs or LED devices to be a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–41). Petitioner contends that “[t]here is no meaningful dispute over a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. Reply 1. We apply Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it requires specific experience with LED circuit design, and, thus, more closely aligns with the level of skill reflected in the ’400 patent and the prior art of record. However, if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, our Decision would not be affected.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner contends that “no special constructions are necessary.” Pet. 8; Pet. Reply 2. “Patent Owner has applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms.” PO Resp. 8. Upon review of the record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D. Patent Owner’s Contention that Martin is not Available as Prior Art” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. The statute governing the formerly available CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The language in § 311(b) implies that, unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to prior art challenges solely under § 102(a). Patent Owner relies, inter alia, on Infobridge, but that case deals with public accessibility under § 102(b). Infobridge, 929 F. 3d at 1368–69. The parties do not cite to any Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in an appeal from an IPR. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication, “Joshi”, was available as prior art in an IPR).” slip op. at 11

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

    “provide a specific numerical analysis of the number of LEDs necessary to match a value of the DC output voltage in Nerone. PO Resp. 31–32. Based on Dr. Baker’s testimony, Petitioner provides several factors that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered when designing Nerone’s circuitry to satisfy the “matching” requirement of limitation 7(f). Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 120). Dr. Baker supports his testimony concerning the knowledge of these factors by one of ordinary skill with reference to disclosures in Cross and Martin. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–123. Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Ducharme dispute that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to consider these factors when designing Nerone’s circuit. See PO Resp. 30–43; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 89–106. Petitioner then explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used these factors to apply the teachings of Martin to configure Nerone’s circuitry so that “the forward voltage of the series-connected LEDs [] approximately match[es] the rectified AC voltage output of the above-described LED driver circuit.” Pet. 21; id. at 20–21; see also Ex. 1107 ¶ 29 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood and would have been capable of determining the appropriate number of LEDs based on the application and design of Nerone’s system such that the forward voltage drop of the LEDs . . . matches the rectified AC voltage output . . . to mitigate against overdriving or underdriving the LEDs.” (citing Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 30–31, Fig. 2)). For these reasons, we find that it was not necessary for Petitioner to provide a specific numerical calculation of the number of LEDs in its proposed modification of Nerone. We also agree with Petitioner that “matching the input voltage to the forward voltage of the LEDs had become a matter of routine optimization.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner contends that this statement is “vague and conclusory.” Sur-reply 12–13. Petitioner, however, supports this statement with the testimony of Dr. Baker. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–123. Dr. Baker’s testimony, which we credit, is corroborated by both Cross and Martin. See id. (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 2, 21, 22 Fig. 5; Ex. 1074 ¶ 30). In particular, Cross specifically discloses that “[t]he number of LEDs employed will vary with the intended lighting application and the value of the rectified DC voltage, wherein optimization of such is well within the skill of those in the art.” Ex. 1074 ¶ 30. Patent Owner does not dispute Cross’s statement that optimizing the number of LEDs is within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See PO Resp. 40. Martin chooses the number of LEDs “such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED . . . is low enough so as to not damage the LEDs.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 22. It also specifically discloses that “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series.” Id. (emphasis added). Consequently, Martin uses “voltage matching” to determine the number of LEDs so as not to damage the individual LEDs. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–124 (Dr. Baker explaining that a skilled artisan “configuring Nerone’s circuit 400 would have recognized that the forward voltage of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the rectified AC voltage output of the above-described LED driver circuit.” Id. ¶ 124.). Martin’s disclosure, thus, aligns with the reason for “matching” described in the ’400 patent. Ex. 1001, 2:24–35.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,687,400 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,687,400

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.