- Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co., Limited v. Semisilicon Technology Corp.InstitutedPTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00156 · APJ Elizabeth J Reagan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6 and 8 under all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail on at least claim 1 over Kuang.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is statutorily authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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). We determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’546 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–6 and 8 of the ’546 patent.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“denied because of the Petition’s improper reliance on the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., contentions (1), (2), and (3) above), we have considered these arguments. However, we preliminarily determine, as discussed below, that certain of the cited prior art teaches all limitations of at least some of the claims. Therefore, reliance on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art is not required to supply any missing claim limitation(s) in at least one of the grounds. Accordingly, we need not expressly address these contentions of Patent Owner at this stage for purposes of our decision to institute trial. However, we invite the parties to provide further briefing on these issues during the course of the trial. With regard to Patent Owner’s contention that the Petition should be denied because the Schubert Declaration entirely repeats the Petition, and the Petition and Schubert Declaration include only conclusory statements of obviousness (contention (4) above), see Prelim. Resp. 20–24, we note that “[v]erbatim duplication between a brief and a declaration does not require giving the declarant’s testimony ‘little or no weight’ under Xerox,” provided that the testimony itself is sufficiently supported. Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC, IPR2023-00757, Paper 11 at 67 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2023) (emphasis added) (discussing Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022- 00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022)) (precedential); Hum Indus. Tech., Inc. v. Amsted Rail Co., IPR2023-00540, Paper 10 at 37 (PTAB Aug. 11, 2023) (“If declaration testimony is supported sufficiently and, in turn, supports contentions in the Petition, we do not give it little to no weight simply because it is repeated in the Petition”). Here, we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Schubert’s testimony closely mirrors the language in the Petition. Nevertheless, on the record before us, we find that the support, including, for example, prior art citations and/or technical reasoning, provided in the declaration and repeated in the Petition is sufficient for demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to at least one of the claims under at least one of the grounds. While expert testimony that mirrors the language of the petition, without more, may provide little help to the Board, we have evaluated the Schubert Declaration to determine the amount of weight attributable to the testimony therein at this stage of the proceeding, based on the support provided for the testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the Schubert Declaration, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related discipline, and 6 years of practical experience in designing or fabricating LED lighting systems, including controlling and driving LEDs,” or “[a]lternatively . . . would have had a master’s degree and four years of experience, or a Ph.D. degree and two years of experience.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See generally Prelim. Resp.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe terms in controversy only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we determine that no claim term requires express construction at this stage of the proceeding, with the exception of the term “synchronous signals” in limitation 1[D], which requires interpretation to the extent necessary to assess the merits of the parties’ assertions. The Specification does not expressly define “synchronous signals.” See generally Ex. 1001. Petitioner proposes a definition of “synchronous signals” based on how “a POSITA would have understood the term,” as: “signals that are sent to the slave nodes to control their corresponding LED strings at the same time.” Pet. 16–17. Patent Owner argues that there is no support for Petitioner’s definition of “synchronous signals,” but Patent Owner does not propose an express construction of the term. See Prelim. Resp. 21–23, 25–26. In the discussion on the merits below, we discuss the interpretation of the term “synchronous signals.” See infra Sec. III.D.2.a.v. As noted below, we invite the parties to present briefing on the interpretation of this term during trial.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,884,546 - Whatfix Inc. v. Walkme Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Apr 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00065 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–20 over all asserted grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claim 1 over Allen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition and . . . any 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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an 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 (‘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 ¶¶ 45–47). We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’317 patent, and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that it “does not believe any terms require a formal construction” “[f]or purposes of this Petition.” Pet. 6. After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any term to resolve any controversy at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.” The question of obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when presented, objective evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,558,317 - Whatfix Inc. v. Walkme Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01368 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9, 12–16, 18–23, 25, 26, 28–31, and 33 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Allen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369. Therefore, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how the proposed combinations of prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art. slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends 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 find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner “does not believe any terms require a formal construction.” Pet. 6. At this stage of the proceeding, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). After reviewing the Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“d) 1[c]: “determining, based on the first and second natural language inputs from the user, an automation process configured to perform an automation of a sequence of interactions with a displayed user interface of a computer program and to simulate user interactions with the displayed user interface of the computer program,” Petitioner argues in the example in Allen, the user requests to buy a book and provides its title (i.e., the first and second natural language inputs from the user, see limitation 1[b] above), and the system “then perform[s] the steps it was previously taught and complete[s] the transaction.” Pet. 38– 39 (quoting Ex. 1014, 12:66–13:1) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 156–157). According to Petitioner, “[i]if the user instead requests a search for hotels, the system would perform a different automat[i]on process.” Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1004, 16:33–40; Ex. 1003 ¶ 158). Petitioner contends that Allen performs an “automation of a sequence of interactions,” i.e., “‘[t]he system then learns to automatically execute steps by observing the user’s actions and analyzing the verbal instructions the user provides.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 159; Ex. 1014, 6:61–65). Petitioner contends that these steps are learned by observing the user’s interactions with a displayed user interface of a computer program, and performing the steps it was previously taught means that the system simulates user interactions with the displayed user interface. Id. (citing Ex. 1014, 12:11–61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160–163). However, Petitioner contends, to the extent that Allen does not disclose performing an automation of a sequence of interactions with a displayed user interface and simulating user interactions with the displayed user interface, it would have been obvious “that in order for the user to easily monitor the system’s actions, the system’s actions would have to be displayed.” Id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1014, 4:66–5:1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 164). Based on our review and consideration of the current record, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Allen teaches limitation 1[c] for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,819,664 - Whatfix Inc. v. Walkme Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01379 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 9–16, and 18–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be unpatentable over Allen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition and . . . any 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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an 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 (POSITA) in the field of the ’732 patent in 2017 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. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 45–47). We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’732 patent, and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we apply the same claim construction 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 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))). Petitioner states that it “does not believe any terms require a formal construction” “[f]or purposes of this Petition.” Pet. 6. After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any term to resolve any controversy at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“‘[f]or each step a user teaches the system, the system attempts to recognize the user’s intent. The system then learns to automatically execute steps by observing the user’s actions and analyzing the verbal instructions the user provides.’” Pet. 40 (quoting Ex. 1014, 6:61–65). More particularly, Petitioner contends: The system learns how to execute the steps in the automation process of buying a book by observing a sequence of user interactions with a displayed UI of a computer program, such as inputting the title in the title entry box 30, navigating to an online vendor site, pulling down and selecting the “Books” category, picking and inputting data in the text entry box 58, actuating the “GO” button, opening a specific book page, identifying the book price, and entering the book price on the purchase form. (EX1014, 12:11-61; EX1003, ¶¶157-158.) The steps execute a functionality of the computer program, such as visiting online websites. (Id., ¶158.) Since the system learns how the user interacts with the displayed UI of the computer program, performing the steps it was previously taught means the program to simulate sequence of interactions. (Id., ¶159.) Id. at 40–41. Further, Petitioner argues, “[a]fter the chatbot is provided with the value for the parameters, it utilizes the values in the automation process of buying a book.” Id. at 41 (citing id. at 38–40 (arguments regarding limitation 1[a]); Ex. 1003 ¶ 160). Accordingly, Petitioner contends, Allen’s automation process is “a parameterized automation process having a parameter.” Id. Still further, Petitioner contends, “[t]o the extent that Allen does not disclose performing an automation of a sequence of interactions with a displayed UI of the computer program and simulating user interactions with the displayed UI, it would have been obvious,” citing disclosure in Allen that a “graphical user interface (‘GUI’) is preferably provided so that the user can easily monitor [the system’s] actions.” Pet. 41 (quoting Ex. 1014, 4:66-5:1 (emphasis added)). According to Petitioner, “[i]t would have been obvious that in order for the user to easily monitor the system’s actions, the system’s actions have to be displayed,” and “[a]s a result, the system’s actions (simulated user interactions) are with a displayed UI.” Id. at 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 161). Based on our review and consideration of the current record, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Allen teaches limitation 1[c] for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,258,732 - PTAB · Mar 4, 2024 · IPR2023-01239 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14–18, 20–23, and 25–29 on all three asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim, and accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all challenged claims of the ’101 patent on the grounds of unpatentability presented. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded it would be appropriate to deny institution merely on the basis of alleged trivial errors such as those identified by Patent Owner. See Prelim Resp. 1. To the extent Petitioner “cit[ed] the wrong Wang reference” (id.), this error was addressed in and corrected pursuant to our November 29, 2023, Order Granting Motion to Correct Clerical or Typographical Mistakes (Paper 13), entered prior to Patent Owner’s filing of the Preliminary Response, with Petitioner subsequently filing a corrected Petition and Declaration of Clifford Reader, Ph.D. Moreover, Patent Owner does not cite to any authority in support of discretionary denial of institution based on findings that a petitioner has not given a petition “due attention.” Cf. USPTO Notice of Proposed Rule Making “Changes Under Consideration to Discretionary Institution Practices, Petition Word-Count Limits, and Settlement Practices for America Invents Act Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”, 88 Fed. Reg. 24,503 (April 21, 2023) available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-21/pdf/2023- 08239.pdf. Accordingly, we decline to deny institution based on these arguments. 2. Identification of Claim Construction, Structure or Acts Corresponding to Means-Plus-Function Limitations Patent Owner asserts that the requested inter partes review should be” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“the ’101 patent, the Examiner cited, inter alia, the Hejna prior art reference but did not apply or reject the claims based on that or any other prior art reference. Ex. 1002, 37, 39. There is no disagreement the Chou reference was never cited or considered by the Examiner. Under Becton, Dickinson factor (a), we consider the similarities and material differences between the asserted Chou and Hejna references. Patent Owner contends “[a]lthough Petitioner argues that Chou discloses or renders obvious element [1d], examination of the actual disclosure of Chou reveals that its disclosure is substantially the same as Hejna, prior art of record.” Prelim. Resp. 46. Patent Owner argues that Chou’s disclosures of (1) selecting a target arrival time for each frame sufficiently in advance of its playback time, (2) controlling an upper bound on the time of arrival of bits into the client buffer, and (3) selection of a code rate such that the frame’s arrival time is as close to the target arrival time as possible, relied upon by Petitioner for teaching limitation [1d], are substantially the same as that of Hejna. Id. at 46–47 (citing Pet. 35; Chou, Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 27; Hejna, Ex. 2011, 4:60–63, 8:50–57, 14:3–7). Addressing Becton, Dickinson factors (a) and (b), Patent Owner fails to persuade us that Chou’s disclosure is substantially the same as or cumulative of Hejna’s. Even if, as alleged by Patent Owner, Hejna discloses subject matter corresponding to that disclosed by Chou, which subject matter is asserted by Petitioner as teaching claim 1’s element [1d], it is not clear why the disclosures are otherwise substantially the same. Although recognizing the Examiner’s reasons for allowance are based on the combination of limitations corresponding to claim 1’s elements [1b], [1d], and [1e], Patent Owner’s argument addresses only Petitioner’s reliance on Chou for teaching claim 1’s element [1d]. See Prelim. Resp. 46. Furthermore, evidence extrinsic to the disclosures themselves does not suggest Chou’s disclosure is likely to be the same or substantially the same as Hejna. For example, the two references list no inventor in common, do not relate back to a common priority document, we ascertain no commonly cited prior art references cited during their respective prosecutions, nor do we find any other indicia that the disclosures are the same or substantially the same. Compare Ex. 1004, code (75), with Ex. 2011, codes (56), (75).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundInstituted
“(ii) Motivations to Combine Second, at this preliminary stage, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chou and Wang. Pet. 74. As argued by Patent Owner, “Wang and Chou are directed to different technologies—active encoding applications and transport-layer protocols,” (see Prelim. Resp. 30, 34–35), and Petitioner does not persuasively explain, for example, why the two methods would be combined into a single method rather than implemented independently in their respective transport and application layers. (iii) Scope of Wang’s Teaching vis-à-vis Limitation [1d] Petitioner states “[i]f [Patent Owner] argues Chou doesn’t teach [1d], Wang does” (Pet. 62), concluding “Wang teaches calculating a change in code rate based on both the remaining time before reproduction start time and an available reproduction time, as required by [1d]” (id. at 63). Apart from a bare cross-reference to Ground 1 (see Pet. 62 (“See Ground 1, [1d]”)), Petitioner does not make any reference to Chou for teaching any aspect of limitation [1d] in connection the combination of Ground 2 (see generally id. at 62–65). Furthermore, although contending that “Chou and Wang both disclose controlling code rate to control buffer duration/fullness to prevent buffer underflow” (id. at 72), Petitioner does not clearly indicate that a POSITA would have had reason to combine Wang’s teaching of criteria used to maintain buffer fullness with Chou’s teaching of determining a code rate where the code rate “represents the data amount (the data size, e.g., the number of bytes) of content data for reproducing content at constant speed (reproducing content at 1x speed) for a unit time (e.g., one second)” (Ex. 1001, 7:7–11). Therefore, at this preliminary stage, we treat Petitioner’s Ground 2 as relying on Wang alone for teaching [1d].” slip op. at 54
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,752,101 - PTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01241 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 10–13, 19, 21, and 33 on all petition grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on claim 10 under § 103 over Ueda and the SIP and SDP …
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We find Peloton’s argument persuasive that Aarts and Ueda differ materially, at least in that Aarts does not disclose “play-list information.” See Ex. 1002, 533–34. It does not matter whether that limitation is “central” to the challenged claims, because an obviousness determination “requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“General Plastic applies to the situation where a petitioner filed multiple, staggered petitions “challenging the same patent and same claims.” See Gen. Plastic, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 9–10, 16–17; see also Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). But here, Peloton initiated this proceeding and IPR2023-01240 on the same day. These circumstances do not implicate the roadmapping concerns that General Plastic seeks to alleviate. See Gen. Plastic, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16–17. Discretionary denial on the basis that a petitioner has filed multiple concurrent petitions challenging the same patent is addressed in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf. The Trial Practice Guide states that, “[b]ased on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations,” because too many petitions “may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns.” Id. at 59. But “there may be circumstances in which more than petition may be necessary.” Id.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). When a ground in a petition is based on a combination of references, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We base our obviousness inquiry on factual considerations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) any objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness that may be in evidence. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Considering these factors,14 we determine that Peloton has shown a reasonable likelihood that claim 10 is unpatentable as obvious over Ueda in view of the SIP and SDP Standards, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Peloton argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience researching, designing, or developing content delivery systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 36–40). NEC agrees. See Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 22). Because it is presently uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’427 patent, we adopt the above articulation of the level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,769,427 - PTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01240 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9, 14–18, 20, 22, 32, and 34–36, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Ueda, the SIP Standard, and the SDP Standard.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We find Peloton’s argument persuasive that Aarts and Ueda differ materially, at least in that Aarts does not disclose “play-list information.” See Ex. 1002, 533–34. It does not matter whether that limitation is “central” to the challenged claims, because an obviousness determination “requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“13. Conclusion as to Claim 1 For the above reasons, we determine that Peloton has shown, sufficiently persuasively at this stage, that Ueda in combination with the SIP and SDP Standards teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features of each reference as Peloton argues in the Petition. We therefore determine that Peloton is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Ueda in view of the SIP Standard and the SDP Standard.” slip op. at 45
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“had a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience researching, designing, or developing content delivery systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 36–40). NEC agrees. See Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 22). Because it is presently uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’427 patent, we adopt the above articulation of the level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “equipment specification information” First, Peloton contends that we should interpret the term equipment specification information to mean “an identifier for identifying the user equipment” because in several figures of the ’427 patent, SIP messages include SIP URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers) associated with the user requesting the content. See Pet. 9 (emphasis omitted). NEC disagrees with Peloton’s proposed construction and argues that “this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 12. NEC contends that no particular construction is necessary because the term is not relevant to the contested issues in the Petition. See id. Based on the preliminary evidence, we agree with NEC that the term has its ordinary and customary meaning, but we need not construe the term explicitly at this stage. 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))).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,769,427 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Almondnet, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 2, 2024 · IPR2022-01259 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 35–51 not unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not show that the claimed computers automatically authorize a distinct third-party second media property to allow ad display.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Having considered the parties’ arguments, we agree with Petitioner that the recited “system” of claim 35 does not necessarily exclude a “third-party second media property.” As Petitioner points out, claim 35 uses the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising,” such that the recited “system comprising one or more computers” may include components other than the recited “one or more computers.” See Pet. Reply 1 (citing CIAS, Inc. v. All. Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “programmed to implement a method of directing electronic advertisements” more naturally modifies “one or more computers,” rather than “system.” Id. at 3. Nonetheless, it is clear from the plain language of claim 35, as well as from the prosecution history of the related ’745 patent, that the third-party second media property must be distinct from such “one or more computers.” Petitioner’s repeated use of the abbreviation “TPSMP” obscures the fact that claim 35 does not simply recite a “second media property” but instead specifically recites a “third-party second media property.” Ex. 1001, 16:18–19 (emphasis added). Highlighting the significance of the modifier “third-party,” as Patent Owner points out, is the fact that that modifier was added to “second media property” in the phrase “automatically electronically authorizing, with at least one of the computers, a third party second media property to allow display, to the electronic visitor when later visiting the second media property, of an advertisement” in an Examiner’s amendment during prosecution of the ’822 patent’s grandparent ’286 application to avoid certain prior art, and the prosecution record of the ’286 application reflects that this amendment was made to make it clear that the recited “authorizing is being done of an unrelated site.” Ex. 2005, 58; see PO Resp. 10–11. More particularly, as Patent Owner points out, the applicant stated in the cited examiner interview report that “the claim structure already made [it] clear” that “the authorizing is being done of an unrelated site . . . because the phrase ‘authorizing’ a site does not seem to cover a site deciding something on its own,” but that the amendment to specify a “third party second media property” made that requirement “explicit.” Ex. 2005, 58; see PO Resp. 7–8 (quoting the same).” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, minus the phrases “at least” modifying the education and “or more” modifying the number of years of experience. As we explained in our Institution Decision, although Petitioner’s articulation otherwise appears consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the asserted prior art, inclusion of such qualifiers render the articulation vague by being open-ended thus encompassing the level of education and experience of an expert, someone with more than ordinary skill in the art. See Dec. 12. Thus, in summary, we find that one with ordinary skill in the art at the pertinent time period would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and two years of experience with designing, programming, configuration, and/or analysis/research with Internet or similar network-related processes including, for example, user/entity profile management and/or web-based targeted content delivery, or a related field, where more education could supplement practical experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Having considered the parties’ respective contentions in light of the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 35 is unpatentable over the combination of Perry, Wilson, and Bronson. In particular, we are not persuaded that the cited prior art teaches or suggests “a system comprising one or more computers programmed to implement a method . . . comprising: . . . automatically electronically authorizing a third-party second media property to allow display . . . of an advertisement correlated with the profile-attribute information received about the visitor.” Although Figure 1 of Perry depicts a “system” that includes computers programmed to implement a method of distributing advertisements to users over the Internet, we are not persuaded that any component in that system implements a method that includes “automatically electronically authorizing a third-party second media property” to display such advertisements. As Patent Owner points out, Petitioner identifies “Internet publisher computer systems 131 and 132” and “advertising service company computer system 140 comprising one or more CPUs 141” as the recited “one or more computers.” Pet. 7; PO Resp. 11. Although there is no dispute that Publisher Systems 131 and 132 and ASC 140 are computers, we find that neither satisfies the remaining limitations of claim 35, particularly because neither “automatically electronically authoriz[es] a third-party second media property” to display advertisements. As we explain in our claim construction discussion above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the recited “system” necessarily must exclude the “third-party second media server.” See supra § III.C. Nonetheless, the third-party second media server still must be separate and distinct from the “one or more computers programmed to implement [the recited] method,” lest the modifier “third-party” be rendered meaningless.” slip op. at 54
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Further, Patent Owner did not present Mr. Sherwood as an expert on patent law or claim drafting, and we decline to give substantial weight to his testimony on this issue that is ultimately a matter of law. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996) (ruling that the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law to be determined exclusively by the courts). Still further, Petitioner’s counsel conceded that the formatting of the claim is not dispositive. Tr. 14:14–18.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 8,200,822 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,200,822 - Servicenow, Incorporated v. Inquisient IncorporatedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · IPR2023-01072 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–47 were unpatentable over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“argument does not change Petitioner’s recognition that the ’585 patent describes a data repository as including modules, such that an ordinarily skilled person would have understood a “module” to be a portion of a data repository. The ’585 patent includes an extensive discussion of tables and relationships between tables, but does not define the term “module.” In the ’585 patent, the term “module” appears in the claims; “module” also appears in the “SUMMARY,” in a manner that parrots the language of the claims. Ex. 1001, 2:1–14. The term “module” is a classic nonce word that does not connote definite structure. See, e.g., Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“‘Module’ is a well-known nonce word that can operate as a substitute for ‘means’ in the context of [pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.] § 112, para. 6” and “is simply a generic description for software or hardware that performs a specified function” that “does not provide any indication of structure.”). Nonetheless, claim 48, which is not challenged in the Petition, does not use the term “module,” instead reciting limitations similar to those of claim 1 with express use of “means”-plus-function language, thereby and equivalents thereof. Ex. 1001, 20:47–22:3; see 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6 (2012). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, we ascribe a broader meaning to the term “module” in claims 1–47.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“translator generates eight relational database tables, one for each class (i.e., (1) Component, (2) Analog Component, (3) Memory, (4) Dynamic Memory, (5) Static Memory, (6) Manufacturer, (7) Domestic [manufacturer], and (8) Foreign [manufacturer]), but Althoff’s system does not generate a relational database table called Class because there is no object called Class. Id. at 29–32 (citing Ex. 1006, 4:58–49, 5:8–10, Figs. 1, 8). We agree with Patent Owner that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Althoff does not teach the claimed class module, i.e., a module (or table) configured to define at least one class of the plurality of elements (Althoff’s objects 101) and store that class. Patent Owner’s contention that there would be no reason to generate a class Class 301 table as Petitioner asserts is also persuasive. See Prelim. Resp. 31–32. As Patent Owner notes, by creating separate tables for each class, e.g., a Component table and a Manufacturer table, Althoff preserves the class information. Id. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions concerning a class Class 301 table fail because “if objects were already stored as table in the object database, there would be no need for Althoff to build a translator to translate objects into table.” Id. at 33. Petitioner relies on Moore’s disclosure of a virtual folders description database to teach the named text module recited in limitation 1[i]. Pet. 5, 28. Petitioner does not identify any disclosure in Moore that teaches the subject matter not disclosed by Althoff. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that limitation 1[e] is taught or suggested by the combination of Althoff and Moore.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner’s Contentions Concerning Reasons to Combine Althoff and Moore Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Althoff and Moore to improve end-user experience by avoiding the need for complicated SQL queries or for navigating complicated tables to access objects stored in Althoff’s database. Pet. 10. Petitioner contends that SQL queries to access databases are often beyond the capabilities of ordinary users, but such users are already familiar with working with folders. Id. at 11–12. Petitioner contends that, because represent it as a container that is like a folder, a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine Moore’s virtual folders with Althoff’s database to simplify use of such systems. Id. at 11–13 (citing Ex. 1003, White Decl. ¶¶ 62–69; Ex. 1007, 3:36–41).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,219,585 - Servicenow, Incorporated v. Inquisient IncorporatedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · IPR2023-01071 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2018). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, Sur-reply, and all supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’468 patent “would have [had] a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and three to five years of industry experience in application development, database development, enterprise application management; or a Ph.D. specializing in the field,” but that “more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s contention with regard to the level of skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. As Petitioner’s unchallenged description of the level of ordinary skill appears appropriate to the subject matter of the ’468 patent and the cited prior art, we apply 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 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“The term “module” is a classic nonce word that does not connote definite structure. See, e.g., Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“‘Module’ is a well-known nonce word that can operate as a substitute for ‘means’ in the context of [pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.] § 112, para. 6” and “is simply a generic description for software or hardware that performs a specified function” that “does not provide any indication of structure.”). Independent claims 14 and 27 do not use the term “module,”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner relies on Althoff’s relational database as teaching the recited data repository and, inter alia, the recited element module. See Pet. 14–17. However, Petitioner relies on Althoff’s “class Class 301,” a class used by Althoff’s object-oriented database, as the basis for its arguments with respect to the recited class module. Pet. 21. Although Althoff provides a database translator for translation between object oriented and relational database structures (see, e.g., Ex. 1006, 3:4–6 (stating that “it would be advantageous to provide a method of compilation and translation between object oriented and relational database structures”)), we agree with Patent Owner that there is no object named “Class” or “Class 301” in the user’s object database in Althoff and that no object name “Class” is translated into a “class module” in the relational database. Prelim. Resp. 32. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner points to nothing from either the user’s object database or the meta-model that is translated into a “class module” found in the user’s relational database. Id. As Patent Owner argues, class Class 301 in Althoff is not an object in the user’s object database, but instead is a class (i.e., a data type) defined by the meta-model that can be used by the user’s object database as a data type when the user creates objects. Id. at 29–30, 32, 37– 38. Still further, we agree with Patent Owner that Althoff teaches that relational databases and object databases are distinct and incompatible, a problem that Althoff seeks to address with its disclosed systems and methods. See Prelim. Resp. 25–26, 29 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:9–14, 3:4–24). Patent Owner’s contentions are also persuasive that there is neither any “‘class Class 301’ table” disclosed in Althoff, notwithstanding Petitioner’s assertions, nor any reason to generate such a table. See Prelim. Resp. 36–39 (citing Pet. 21). As Patent Owner notes, by creating separate Althoff preserves class information. Id. at 33. But Althoff does not state that class information for each user-created object is stored in a “row” of a “class Class 301 table” as asserted in the Petition, and we agree with Patent Owner that Althoff would have no need to describe a translation process to convert objects into tables if the classes of the object database were already stored “rows” in a “table.” Id. at 38. With regard to the Petition’s reference to Althoff’s disclosure that “each object of class Class 301 comprises information in table 3-2” (Pet. 21 (quoting Ex. 1006, 11:12–16)), we agree with Patent Owner that Table 3-2 of Althoff does not concern a row of a “class table”; instead, as Patent Owner explains, “Table 3-2 is merely a descriptive device in the specification of Althoff that describes in a two-column format the information stored within an object of type ‘Class’ in the user’s object database . . . in a form more easily accessible to the reader than a narrative.” Prelim. Resp. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1006, 11:15–47).” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,979,468
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.