- Whatfix Inc. v. Walkme Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00065 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable under the Symons and Williams, Allen, or Krishnan and Radhakrishnan obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner proposes that a “person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) in the field of the ’317 patent would have [had a] bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science and two years of experience working on NLP [natural language processing] or automation processes” or “[a]lternatively . . . would have [had] five to six years of experience working on NLP or automation processes.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–45). We adopted Petitioner’s proposal for purposes of the Decision on Institution, explaining that it appeared to be consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’317 patent. Dec. 12. is inconsistent with the asserted Symons prior art and with factors (4)–(6) set forth in Daiichi Sankyo. PO Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 36–45). According to Patent Owner, the technology of the ’317 patent was “evolving rapidly” and the level of sophistication in the technology was “relatively low” in November 2017. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1004, 1–2; Ex. 1009, 2; Ex. 2002 ¶ 42; Ex. 2003 (transcript of June 26, 2024, deposition of Dr. Beigi), 141:2–9, 191:18–197:5; Ex. 2007; Ex. 2008). Further, Patent Owner contends, “[a]ctive work[ers] in the field, like Symons,[8] had less experience than [Dr. Beigi] proposed.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003, 112:12–24). Accordingly, Patent Owner argues, “[t]he evidence of record demonstrates a more appropriate level of skill would [be] a worker who had some education, formal or informal, in computer science and 1–2 years’ work experience with chatbots using NLP and/or automation processes.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 44; Ex. 2002 ¶ 44; Pet. 5–6). “Under Patent Owner’s more appropriate analysis,” Patent Owner contends, “Dr. Beigi’s interpretation of what a POSITA would understand are overstated,” as “[h]e expects a POSITA to have ‘more experience’ (like himself) and apply a more ‘technically correct’ (in his view) understanding of the prior art than less skilled authors and artisans would have understood.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 141:2–9, 191:18–197:5). Nonetheless, Patent Owner argues, “[s]hould the Board continue to apply Petitioner’s” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). construction” “[f]or purposes of this Petition.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner similarly represents that “[t]he parties agree that the claim terms used in the ’317 Patent claims have their ‘ordinary and custom[ary] meanings of terms’ as would be understood by a POSITA as of November 5, 2017.” PO Resp. 24. After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 35–37). Further, Petitioner asserts, “the Petition relies on Williams, not Symons, for its teachings of a ‘web-based’ target system.” Id. (citing Pet. 40). Petitioner does not, however, address Patent Owner’s main point, i.e., that the Petition relies on Symons’s illustration of its RPA bot purportedly filling in a text input field in the GUI of the Cronos Email Signature Generator for limitation 1[g] but relies on Symons’s illustration of its RPA bot interacting with a widget in Internet Explorer for limitation 1[h], despite the recitation in limitation 1[h] of “interacting with a widget in the GUI.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 38. Dr. Beigi acknowledges that, “[a]ccording to the ’317 patent, a widget is a GUI element,” and he concludes, with reference to Petitioner’s annotated version of the screenshot from page 13 of Exhibit 1006 reproduced above, that “Symon[s]’s GUI button is a widget in a GUI.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 100 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1001, 10:19–21). But neither the Petition, nor the Reply, nor Dr. Beigi’s testimony persuasively explains how a dialog box in Internet Explorer teaches or suggests a widget in the Cronos GUI. The Reply’s contention that “the Petition relies on Williams . . . for its teachings of a ‘web-based’ target system” is unavailing, because the issue is not whether either the Cronos program or Internet Explorer is “web-based”12 but whether Petitioner has identified a teaching or suggestion of an implementation of an automation process that fills in a text input field in a GUI of a web-based target system and interacts with a widget in the same GUI. 12 In this regard, we credit Mr. Zatkovich’s statement that Internet Explorer is local to and resident on the user’s computer. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 161–162; cf. Ex. 2003, 219:24–220:5 (Dr. Beigi testifying that he is “not sure where this Windows software is running”).” slip op. at 39
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s reasoning fails to explain “how the combination of the two references was supposed to work.” See Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017). More specifically, Petitioner fails to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform Krishnan’s automation process (i.e., fulfilling customer requests) by implementing an “automation process by interacting with a Graphical User Interface (GUI)” and “simulating user input to the GUI,” as purportedly taught by Radhakrishnan. Petitioner’s arguments are focused toward using Radhakrishnan’s RPA bot to perform Krishnan’s customer service requests (i.e., automation process) but fail to explain how Radhakrishnan’s RPA bot’s mirroring of the user’s operations (i.e., the simulation on the displayed user interface) as applied in Krishnan would work or provide sufficient reasoning to do so. See Personal Web, 848 F.3d at 993–994 (“[I]t does not imply a motivation to pick out . . . two references and combine them to arrive at the claimed invention”); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[M]ere identification in the prior art of each element is insufficient to defeat the patentability of the combined subject matter as a whole”).” slip op. at 60
Patent outcomesUS 11,558,317 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,558,317 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01250 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–5, 7, 9–16, or 20 unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Min’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s [degree] in [electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science], physics, or equivalent, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures, protocols and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 59). Dr. Min testifies that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. Additionally, Petitioner contends that Dr. Min “exceeded this level of experience by the priority date.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1010 (curriculum vitae of Dr. Min)). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’946 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Neither party contends that any claim terms require an express construction to resolve the present controversy. Pet. 8 (“For purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner does not believe any terms require a formal construction.”); see generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, Petitioner explains that the Petition is structured such that “Ground 1 is based on Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the district court litigation, where the claimed ‘MUD module’ is generally mapped to multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) receivers in a wireless network.” Pet. 2. Petitioner contends that “[u]nder this broad interpretation of a ‘MUD module,’ Walton’s MIMO receiver renders every challenged claim obvious.” Id. In contrast to Ground 1, the Petition states that “Ground 2 is based on the plain meaning of ‘MUD module,’ which is a component that detects, separates, and decodes signals from multiple users transmitting simultaneously over the same frequency band.” Id. Petitioner contends that, “[a]pplying the correct meaning of the term, Walton’s MIMO receiver does not necessarily comprise a MUD module.” Id. Therefore, Petitioner explains that “Ground 2 combines Walton with Learned, which expressly discloses [a] multi-user detector, and thus renders every challenged claim obvious in combination with Walton.” Id. at 2–3.7 In other words, the Petition presents Ground 1 and Grounds 2/3 as alternatives depending on the meaning of 7 Although not specifically relevant to claim construction, Petitioner explains that “Ground 3 further combines Walton and Learned with Quigley, to the extent Patent Owner argues Walton does not disclose providing a burst control input.” Pet. 3. “MUD module,” where Ground 1 is based on Petitioner’s understanding of Patent Owner’s interpretation of the term and Grounds 2 and 3 are based on Petitioner’s interpretation of the term as having its plain meaning. Petitioner further contends that “[e]very other claim term carries its ‘ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . .” Id. at 8. Although Petitioner presents a potential dispute regarding the meaning of “MUD module,” we need not construe this term expressly because the determination we reach herein does not depend on which meaning MUD module is applied. Accordingly, we do not construe any claim terms expressly because express constructions are not necessary to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owners contends that the factors set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), weigh heavily in favor of discretionary denial. Prelim. Resp. 40–46; Paper 10. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 74–77; Paper 9. In light of the conclusion reached above, we need not address the parties’ arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,089,946 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01248 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11, 16, and 21 unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’071 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes a specific construction of any claim term, although Petitioner contends each term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 16; see generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because the meaning of the terms is not in dispute and an express construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We find the Petition lacking in particularity because it does not clearly identify what aspect of Jin is alleged to teach the unique signal parameters (or unique estimated signal parameters) recited in claim 1. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if — (3) the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim . . . .”). First, as reflected above, the Petition asserts that something called a “unique pilot parameter” teaches the recited unique estimated signal parameters. But “unique pilot parameter” is not a term or phrase recited in Jin. See Prelim. Resp. 19 (arguing the same). So, when Petitioner states “Jin discloses that the base station uses the unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique estimated signal parameters’) to ‘identify which user (i.e., mobile terminal) has transmitted the received data,’” it is not clear what element in Jin Petitioner intends to identify by the term “unique pilot parameter.” Dr. Min’s testimony does not help resolve the ambiguity in the Petition. In particular, Dr. Min also refers to a “unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique signal parameter’) for each user.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 89. But, as noted above, Jin does not disclose an element referred to as a “pilot parameter” and it is not clear what element Dr. Min intended to identify in Jin.8” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,814,071 - Whatfix Inc. v. Walkme Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01368 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 12, 13, 16, 19–23, 26, 29, and 31 are unpatentable over Symons and Williams; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science and two years of experience working on NLP [natural language processing] and automation processes. Alternatively, a POSITA would have five to six years of experience working on NLP and automation processes.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–52). We adopted Petitioner’s proposal for purposes of the Decision on Institution, explaining that it appeared to be consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’664 patent. Dec. 12.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We interpret claims using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). However, “the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess, and “[i]n such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316. A patentee may “choose to be his or her own lexicographer by clearly setting forth an explicit definition for a claim term that could differ in scope from that which would be afforded by its ordinary meaning.” Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We only need to construe the claims to the extent necessary to resolve the parties’ disputes. See Realtime Data, LLC. v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 18
- ExcludeGranted in part
“Exhibits 2015–2017 are three comments made on the Internet in association with the Symons Article. These comments are also shown in Exhibit 2005. According to our rules, “[s]upplemental evidence is not filed at the time of the objection, but simply served, and is filed only in support of an opposition to a motion to exclude.” CTPG14 79 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.64(a), 42.64(b)(2)). Because no motion to exclude was filed by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner improperly filed Exhibits 2014–2017. However, as described above, the comments in Exhibit 2015–2017 are already part of the record in Exhibit 2005, and Petitioner has not filed a motion to expunge Exhibit 2005. Therefore, we are not aware of any harm to Petitioner by leaving these Exhibits in the record, as the information is 14 PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019 (the “CTPG”), available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf. already there. See Tr. 100:8–14. Moreover, retaining these Exhibits in the record will avoid confusion in the record and serve the public interest in a full and complete record. Accordingly, we will expunge only Exhibit 2018, as agreed by the parties, and waive the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) to the extent necessary to retain entry of Exhibits 2014–2017.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We need not determine whether Symons alone teaches this limitation, because we are persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Symons and Williams teaches this limitation. We agree with Petitioner that, by disclosing that “chatbots can engage in natural language dialog with the caller and discern, through a series of interactions, the nature of the call[,] . . .capture information required to further handle the request . . [and] then trigger a robot, passing the required information to the robot to complete the request,” Williams teaches “determining . . . an automation process,” as recited in limitation 1[c]. See Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1011, 3) (some emphasis omitted); see Ex. 1003 ¶ 95. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments that the combination is “ill-defined.” Sur-reply 8–9. Petitioner argues that the combination of Symons and Williams “results in a chatbot-RPA bot system capable of handling a user request for automated email signature generation along with other requests, such as automated generation of an electronic letterhead or an electronic invoice.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 98). In other words, in addition to the capability of handling the automated email signature generation (as taught in Symons), the combined chatbot-RPA bot system can handle other requests as well (as taught in Williams). Further, we agree with Petitioner that “[t]he ability to handle multiple requests would expand the capabilities and flexibilities of the chatbot-RPA bot” as well as “improv[e] costs, time, and capabilities.” Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95, 96, 99). Both Symons and Williams support this argument. Ex. 1011, 2 (stating that RPA “support[s] repetitive, labor-intensive and transactional business processes,” that “software robots [are] an attractive way to drive operational cost reduction,” and that “[a]utomation through RPA can offer a return on investment (ROI) often ranging between 30 and 50 percent”); id. at 5 (stating that “[d]eployment of these cognitive tools promises new levels of productivity and innovation–freeing human workers to focus on higher-value activities and bringing industrial-level quality, consistency and auditability to business processes”); Ex. 1004, 2 (stating that “combining [RPA bots and chatbots] to automate processes can tremendously boost productivity in multiple organizations” and that “[RPA bots] reduce[] costs and human efforts”). Patent Owner’s argument that “[n]either Symons nor Williams suggest using a single chatbot-RPA to handle multiple requests at once in the same conversation thread” (PO Resp. 38) is not commensurate with the claim language, which does not require a single automation process (e.g., chatbot-RPA) to handle multiple inputs (e.g., multiple requests in the same conversation thread). See Reply 9–10. Regardless, however, we are not persuaded that Williams does not suggest using a single chatbot-RPA to handle multiple requests, as argued by Patent Owner. Sur-reply 9; see Ex. 1011, 2 (stating, for example, that “[t]he most common processes enabled by RPA today include back-office administrative processes and workflow within IT, finance, procurement, and human resources functions” and that “RPA enlists software robots to perform complex, nested routines that cut across multiple applications and interact with these systems”); id. at 3 (“Through several scripted questions, the virtual agent can surmise that the supplier is asking for status on their payment and, thus, trigger an RPA robot to access the appropriate enterprise resource planning (ERP) backend system, validate the caller’s details, retrieve necessary information, and provide status back in real-time to the supplier.”).” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 10,819,664 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,819,664 - Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless / T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Aspen Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00008 · APJ Donald E Daybell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–28 were unpatentable over Tagg or Kottilingal and Politis.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“There is, however, a consistent thread that flows through the relevant disclosures of the specification; namely, that the “state involving the SIP sequence” is maintained throughout a dialog. Ex. 1001, 5:1–38 (step 210); see also id. (step 160). Using the method of Figure 4, including steps 160 and 210 and maintaining the SIP signaling state, is how the ’554 Patent discloses that calls are not broken or dropped. See, e.g., id. at 7:10–25. Maintaining the “state” of the SIP signaling sequence includes (but is not limited to) the teachings that a “SIP signaling sequence number” is maintained, as well as the details of how that number is maintained, as set forth in the specification. We find that the state of the SIP signaling sequence as that term is used in the specification refers to the rules (or paradigm) used to identify a collection of SIP signals as a “SIP signaling sequence,” and in particular the rules used to identify the next SIP packet received as belonging to a sequence of packets previously received. One key to the disclosed invention discussed in the specification is the concept that the invention prevents a call 3:45–4:9. The specification contends that the invention accomplishes this goal by configuring the packets involved in a VoIP call such that the receiving device (e.g., a SIP server) is able to recognize those packets as belonging to the same call, even though the packets are received over different paths. Id. at 7:35–50; 7:60–8:3. The particular way that the receiving devices are able to recognize that the packets are part of the same call is, per the claims, because the SIP signaling sequence is maintained after a network switch. Id. at 8:27–29. Thus, where a sequence of SIP signals uses numbers such as cseq values, there is a rule for identifying what the next signal in the sequence is. Ex. 1001, 5:1–38. A receiving device that knows the rule can identify an incoming packet as the next packet in the same signaling sequence as previously received packets, by applying the rule. Id. at 7:35–50. The specification provides one example rule, that the next SIP signal bears a monotonically-increasing cseq number. Id. at 5:1–38. But there could be other such rules as well. For example, the value could be monotonically decreased, or the value could be determined using some other formula.8 The claims also do not require that the sequence of SIP signals use “numbers” as sequence identifiers.9 Other labeling paradigms could be possible as well, 8 Patent Owner’s litigation claim construction improperly imports implementation details from the preferred embodiment, such as “cseq numbers” and the limitations that these numbers “monotonically increase” for new transmissions, or be “preserved” for re-transmissions. While such embodiments would be one way of maintaining a SIP signaling sequence, the specification does not clearly limit the invention to only these embodiments. 9 Petitioner’s litigation claim construction improperly imports the limitation from the preferred embodiment that the SIP signaling sequence must be” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“as of the time of the invention of the ’554 Patent “would have been familiar with designing rules for implementing policies for service plans for use of an access network and provisioning those rules to network elements for policy enforcement” and would have gained this knowledge through a mixture of training and work experience, such as by having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science and two years of experience; or by obtaining a Master’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, but having only one year of experience; or by having no formal education but experience in network service plan provisioning systems of at least four years. Pet. 10. 4 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 ’554 Patent was filed before the effective date of the relevant amendment, the pre- AIA version of §103 applies. that a POSITA must specifically have “been familiar with designing rules for implementing policies for service plans for use of an access network and provisioning those rules to network elements for policy enforcement.” Prelim. Resp. 17–18. At this juncture, we adopt the agreed-upon portion of Petitioner’s definition, without the specific requirement relating to designing rules. This definition appears to be consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Our analysis would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine whether to institute review. Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence before us, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success in establishing that any claim of the ’554 Patent is unpatentable, and thus we decline to institute review. The Petition is denied, and inter partes review is not instituted.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We disagree with Petitioner’s view of Tagg. At best, the cited portions of Tagg disclose that SIP is used by endpoint 1512 to communicate with SIP server 1500, and by the SIP server to communicate with SIP proxy 1504. Figure 15 discloses that SIP is used for both of the paths from endpoint 1520 to SIP server 1500, via the WWAN or the WLAN. Figure 15 further discloses that SIP is used for the path from SIP server 1500 to SIP proxy 1504. But Figure 15 and the accompanying text are silent about any “sequences” of SIP signals at all, much less whether any such “sequences” are maintained, as required by the language of limitation 1.6. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 324–346, Fig. 15. Instead, Tagg’s specification simply discloses that SIP is used to perform call management functions. Id. ¶¶ 245–247. Tagg’s cases 1 and 6, relied on by Petitioner, teach that Tagg’s server can ensure that the end user appears to the rest of the world (i.e. the devices upstream of the SIP server) as if no network change is being made. Ex. 1005 ¶ 320. Tagg further teaches that either “make before break” or “make and break” schemes may be used. Id. But these cases do not explain how any SIP signaling sequences are used, much less how or even that any SIP signaling sequence is maintained when a network switches. At most, Tagg teaches that each path will have an IP (Internet Protocol) address, which may be the same or different for each path. Id. ¶ 288. But IP addresses are part of the IP disclosing or suggesting that IP addressing schemes are maintained or otherwise accounted for in a network switch, that would not be sufficient to disclose or suggest that SIP signal sequences are maintained. Furthermore, under our construction of limitation 1.6, it must be shown that the same rules or paradigm used to identify that an incoming SIP packet is the next SIP packet in a sequence, regardless of whether that packet is transmitted on the first network path or the one of a plurality of alternative network paths. The Petition is silent on this point. The closest Petitioner comes is the assertion that Figure 15 depicts preservation of “the same SIP signaling sequence,” with the Petitioner’s explanation being that Tagg allows simultaneous connections across a WWAN and a WLAN, and that “POSITAs would have understood that Tagg’s SIP protocol uniformity in directionality teaches that a ‘SIP signaling sequence . . . is maintained.’” Pet. 39–40.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,009,554 - Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. NEC CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01239 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14–18, 20–23, and 25–29 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed code-rate determination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, supported by the testimony of Dr. Reader, argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, a related field, and 2–3 years’ experience researching, designing, or developing content delivery systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 67–69). Petitioner further argues “[o]ne having less education but more practical experience, or more education and less experience, might also meet this standard.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition or offer an alternative level or skill in the art. PO Resp. 12 (citing Pet. 14; Ex. 2012). Instead, “[f]or the purposes of this PO Response only, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of POSITA.” Id. Thus, on this record, the parties agree upon the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, and this level is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’101 patent and the prior art references that disclose content delivery systems. For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“the gap between the playback deadline and the target schedule, (td(n) − tT(n)), is the target buffer duration, i.e., ‘the desired client buffer duration (in client time).’” Id. at 22–23 (quoting Chou ¶ 74). Petitioner also argues that “in efforts to match upper bound tb(n) to target schedule tT(n), Chou takes into consideration the time duration between target schedule tT(n) and the playback deadline td(n).” Thus, it appears Petitioner assembles three separate and distinct time intervals from Chou’s timing diagrams and equations to construct one contiguous time interval equivalent to claim 1’s remaining time. However, Chou does not recognize the time interval that Petitioner posits, and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that this combined time interval exists as a teaching in the prior art and is used as part of any step or decision involved in determining the code rate. As admitted by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Reader, Petitioner’s analysis “used the claims as a road map to find limitations in the prior art.” Ex. 2015, 76:4–9 (Reader Deposition Transcript). See also Tr. 28:20–31:2 (Petitioner’s response to whether identification of and integration of separate time ranges described by Chou is hindsight reconstruction, Petitioner argues Chou’s device operates such that code rate is based on remaining time). Under the circumstances, this is improper because Petitioner and Dr. Reader do not justify this combination of separately identified time ranges except based solely on hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. However, even if that were not the case, we are not persuaded that Chou or the other asserted prior art references suggest using the combined time interval td(n) − ta(n) as the basis for any decision related to determining the code rate.” slip op. at 37
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“d) Analysis In our Institution Decision, although expressing some uncertainty with respect to certain of Patent Owner’s arguments on the preliminary record then before us, “we [were] not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that [(1)] Wang teaches [1d]’s code rate” (Dec. 53 (citing Pet. 62–65) or (2) “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chou and Wang” (id. at 54 (citing Pet. 74)). Petitioner does not dispute those determinations in its Reply or otherwise. Furthermore, Petitioner does not address or otherwise dispute Patent Owner’s arguments challenging the asserted obviousness of claims 1, 4–6, 10–16, and 19–26 over the combined teachings of Chou and Wang. Thus, for at least the reasons set forth in our Institution Decision, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to show that (1) one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Chou and Wang or (2) the combined teaching of Chou and Wang renders limitation 1(d) obvious. e) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Chou and Wang.” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 8,752,101 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,752,101 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01274 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable: claim 3 as obvious over Clark, Manner, and Santoro; claim 4 as obvious over Clark and Manner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“We have considered the parties’ respective arguments concerning the construction of this claim term and, for the following reasons, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “compartment” as “an enclosed space for containing an item.” First, Petitioner does not dispute that it agreed to adopt Patent Owner’s construction in the district court proceeding between the parties. Pet. Reply 5; Tr. 8:14–21. Second, Petitioner cites to several Board Decisions in which the panels construed claim terms even though the parties agreed to constructions in parallel litigation and argues that the agreement between Petitioner and Patent Owner in the parallel district court proceeding has no bearing on this proceeding. Id. (citing Cook Grp. Inc. v. Cook Med. LLC, IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7–8 (PTAB May 16, 2017); Arris Int’l PLC v. Sony Corp., IPR2016-00834, Paper 54 at 26–29 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2017); Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18–19 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2016)). But, those cited decisions are not precedential and two of them were decided under the “broadest reasonable interpretation standard,” not the Phillips standard, thereby rendering a stipulation between the parties in district court less informative to the panels’ determinations. See Apple, IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18; Cook Grp., IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7. More importantly, given Petitioner’s agreement with Patent Owner’s construction in the district court, we see no reason to apply a different construction here simply because Petitioner proposed that construction prior to agreeing to the construction with Patent Owner in district court. Tr. 11:21–25.8” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act as his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“For the following reasons, we determine that the portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent relied on by Patent Owner do not “prov[e] the existence of a ‘clear and unmistakable’ disclaimer that would have been evident to one skilled in the art.” Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1063– 64.14 Patent Owner argues that the prosecution history redefined the term forward “by disclaiming workstations that are mounted on top of or over the height adjustment mechanism.” PO Resp. 29. Claims 3 and 4 recite “a work platform including a work surface and compartments for containing items” not a “workstation.” It is unclear what Patent Owner is referring to as the “workstation,” i.e., the recited “work platform,” the recited “work surface,” or the combination of “work platform,” “work surface,” and the recited “compartments.” Patent Owner injects further ambiguity by rephrasing the disclaimer, as “Applicant explicitly disclaimed carts having work stations mounted entirely to the top of the height adjustment mechanism (e.g., carts like Clark and Reeder).” Id. at 30 (emphasis added). Regardless of these 14 Because of our determination that the requirements for a clear and unmistakable disclaimer are not met by the cited portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent, we need not and do not reach the question of relevance of the statements in the prosecution of the ’650 patent to the claims of the ’668 patent. ambiguities, Patent Owner misinterprets the statements in the prosecution history. The applicant’s primary argument was that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have incorporated moveable work surfaces above the “compartment” of Clark. Ex. 1033, 137–38. The applicant’s arguments, thus, do not support Patent Owner’s argument here that “workstations” should not be mounted “over or on top of the height adjustment mechanism.” See id.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,668 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,594,668 - Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01275 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Clark and Manner (claims 1–3, 5, 8) and Clark, Manner, and Hartman (claim 6).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 17–18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. at 18. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“i. “actuator” Petitioner contends in district court that the term “an actuator for controlling the driver” is indefinite for invoking means-plus-function claim language without providing corresponding structure. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1023, 36–40; Ex. 1024, 28–32). For the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner adopts the construction Patent Owner presented in the district court, i.e., “a mechanism to activate or control equipment, e.g., by use of pneumatic, hydraulic, or electronic signals.” Id. at 10 (quoting Ex. 1012, 3–4). Patent Owner does not address this term in this proceeding. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Because it is uncontested in this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s construction from the district court proceeding as presented here by Petitioner.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Although not dispositive to our Decision, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of this term, which does not require the work surface to be curved.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act of his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. We start our analysis with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “wherein the work platform includes a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism, in a forward direction . . . the compartment is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction.” Ex. 1001, 14:39–43. By reciting “a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism,” the claim language implies that the entire work platform is not required to project in the forward direction. We also note that nothing in claim 1 requires any particular size of the compartment. The only recitation in the claim regarding location of the compartment is that it “is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction,” but that language on its face does not require or suggest that the compartments are “entirely in” or only “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. In other words, nothing in the claims expressly restricts the compartments from being disposed in the “portion” recited as well as another portion of the work platform that does not project in the forward direction. Turning to the Specification, Patent Owner does not direct us to any” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,215,650 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,215,650 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01249 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because neither the Hottinen–Lilleberg nor Zimmerman–Lilleberg combination showed the claimed parameter tracking unit or an equivalent for claims 1, 3–5, and 7–9.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to either ground asserted in the Petition. We therefore deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “at the time of the ’505 patent had at least a bachelor’s in EE/CE/CS, physics, or equivalent, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures, protocols and signal propagation,” where “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–55). Patent Owner does not comment on Petitioner’s formulation or offer any competing formulation in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. We find Petitioner’s proposal to be consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’505 patent, and accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“for use in conjunction with a signal separation unit, in which each received signal has associated channel transfer functions.” Ex. 1001, 12:42–45. The preamble of independent claim 9 similarly recites “a parameter estimation unit for use in conjunction with a signal separation unit for estimating channel transfer function parameters from channel transfer functions.” Id. at 14:4–7. Petitioner, however, contends that “this claim term is not part of the preamble” and that “the preamble is [only] ‘In a multi-user detection system in which interfering signals are purposely allowed to exist.’” Pet. 14. Regardless, Petitioner further contends, to the extent there is any argument that that recitation is part of the preamble, “it is limiting at least because it provides antecedent basis to the ‘parameter estimation unit’ and ‘associated channel transfer functions’ terms that are used in the remainder of the body of the claims and is ‘essential to understanding the structural limitations’ of the parameter estimation unit.” Id. Apart from arguing that the recited “parameter estimation unit” is limiting, Petitioner does not propose any id. Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s contentions and also does not argue that any construction is necessary for the parameter estimation unit. See generally Prelim. Resp. As reproduced in Section II.D. above, the preamble of claim 1, in its entirety, recites, “In a multi-user detection system in which interfering signals are purposely allowed to exist, a parameter estimation unit for use in conjunction with a signal separation unit, in which each received signal has associated channel transfer functions.” Ex. 1001, 12:41–45. The preamble of claim 9 is similar. Id. at 14:3–7 (reciting “In a multi-user detection system in which interfering signals are purposely allowed to exist, a parameter estimation unit for use in conjunction with a signal separation unit for estimating channel transfer function parameters from channel transfer functions”). The body of each claim recites the elements of the recited “parameter estimation unit,” namely, “a signal processor for determining said channel transfer functions for each received signal” and “means . . . for providing uninterrupted estimates of the channel transfer function parameters on a real-time basis . . . .” The phrase “In a multi-user detection system in which interfering signals are purposely allowed to exist” provides additional context for the environment in which the parameter estimation unit is intended to operate. Whether the preamble is limiting is a question that we do not need to decide here, however. Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Because Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the preamble recitations, and our decision herein need not reach a determination with regard to that question.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“A claim limitation using the phrase “means for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.6 See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Section 112 ¶ 6 provides that: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. When construing a means-plus-function limitation under § 112 ¶ 6, it is necessary first to identify the claimed function, and then to look to the specification to identify the corresponding structure for that function. In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296–97 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Under that second step, “structure disclosed in the specification is corresponding 6 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’676 patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date of the statute), we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112. associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Our Rules specifically require that the petition identify the corresponding structure in proposing a construction for a means-plus-function claim limitation. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). “This inquiry is undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Cardiac Pacemakers, 296 F.3d at 1113.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,947,505
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.