- Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00950 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable; claims 15–22 were shown unpatentable over Markel. The revised contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In carefully and faithfully wrangling the parties’ views and explanation as to the meaning of limitation [1.c.iii], we conclude that Petitioner’s “correct interpretation” of that limitation is that a first pad is recognized as a distinct structure or component from a first portion of an enclosure, and that the pad is positioned underneath that first portion in a manner such that the pad is concealed from a user. We adopt that interpretation. We determine that it is unnecessary to discuss an express construction for any other term to resolve this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Nevertheless, our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner makes a more persuasive case as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood from Markel’s disclosure. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the record before us readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have followed Markel’s practice of forming or molding electrodes from conductive plastic rather than locating a separate electrode component underneath a conductive plaster layer. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31 (“[a] POSITA would find nothing in cited portions of Markel to inform or encourage placement of an electrode underneath an exterior layer.”). Indeed, as Patent Owner articulates, Petitioner “fails to provide any reasoning as to why a POSITA would have found Markel’s method of concealment to be deficient, or why a POSITA would have been motivated in light of Markel’s manner of concealment to nevertheless place an electrode underneath the exterior portion of the device.” Id. To that end, we credit Dr. Kenny’s supporting testimony as consistent with Markel’s express teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81–88. We credit that testimony over the countervailing testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 135–139), as we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Berger’s testimony “is not supported by Markel’s actual disclosures.” PO Resp. 31.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not appear to disagree that Markel, itself, does not convey that an electrode, or any structure identifiable as a “pad,” is positioned underneath any surface of any enclosure. Rather, Petitioner’s theory of unpatentability is premised on modification of Markel to so position such a pad. Although seemingly acknowledging that Markel contemplates a concealment technique involving molding an electrode into an exterior surface, Petitioner extrapolates from that disclosure that a skilled artisan would be motivated to try an alternative means of concealing an electrode pad by placing the pad underneath an outer layer or portion, i.e., “audio output portion 610.” See Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 135). Neither Petitioner, nor Dr. Kenny, however, meaningfully explains why a skilled artisan would have deviated from Markel’s express teachings of concealing an electrode via molding techniques to then arrive at an entirely different concealment approach of placing an electrode pad underneath the audio output portion. Petitioner’s modification proposal in that regard appears borne of hindsight bias based on the disclosure of the ’257 patent rather than any dutiful consideration of what Markel’s actual teachings would have conveyed to a skilled artisan. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 84 (Dr. Kenny explaining why Petitioner’s proposed modification to Markel to hide the electrode underneath a plastic conductive layer was based on improper hindsight). Such hindsight bias is impermissible. See, e.g., Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner makes a more persuasive case as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood from Markel’s disclosure. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the record before us readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have followed Markel’s practice of forming or molding electrodes from conductive plastic rather than locating a separate electrode component underneath a conductive plaster layer. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31 (“[a] POSITA would find nothing in cited portions of Markel to inform or encourage placement of an electrode underneath an exterior layer.”). Indeed, as Patent Owner articulates, Petitioner “fails to provide any reasoning as to why a POSITA would have found Markel’s method of concealment to be deficient, or why a POSITA would have been motivated in light of Markel’s manner of concealment to nevertheless place an electrode underneath the exterior portion of the device.” Id. To that end, we credit Dr. Kenny’s supporting testimony as consistent with Markel’s express teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81–88. We credit that testimony over the countervailing testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 135–139), as we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Berger’s testimony “is not supported by Markel’s actual disclosures.” PO Resp. 31.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00966 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not explain whether the component limitations invoke § 112(f) or identify corresponding structure, as required by Rule 42.104(b)(3).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide[1,2](“CTPG”) . . . instructs that “[w]here claim language may be construed according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), a petitioner must provide a construction.” CTPG 45 (emphases added) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)). The CTPG advises that a party “may choose to elaborate why § 112(f) should or should not apply to the limitation at issue.” Id. Notably, the CTPG warns that “[a] petitioner who chooses not to address construction under § 112(f) risks failing to satisfy the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” Id.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDenied
“Given these facts, we determine that rule 104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition either identify “the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function” recited in the “component” term limitations or explain why the “component” term limitations are not subject to a means-plus-function construction. This, it fails to do. To be clear, we note that our rules do not prohibit a petitioner from taking inconsistent claim construction positions before the Board and a district court. See 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Labs, Inc., IPR2020- 00086, Paper 8 at 18 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2020). However, where, as here, a petitioner has proposed a claim term be construed solely as a means-plus-function limitation in a district court proceeding and emphasized that the issue is not only “most significant” but potentially “case . . . dispositive,” we determine the petition is obliged to either apply that construction in this proceeding or explain why that construction is not applicable. Accordingly, we find the Petition to be deficient under rule 104(b)(3).4” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Other
“connote a definite structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350 (identifying words such as “mechanism,” “element,” “device,” and others as verbal constructs that do not connote sufficiently definite structures). Indeed, the Specification discloses all of the “components” recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, including the “comparing component,” can be “implemented as a computer having tangible computer-readable media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon.” Ex. 1001, 5:35–43. Thus, like the word “module,” a recognized nonce word, each of the recited “components” is nothing more than “a generic description for software or hardware that performs a specified function” and their recitation “operate[s] as a substitute for ‘means’ in the context of § 112, para. 6.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. Accordingly, we construe the “comparing component” limitation recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 as a meansplus-function limitation whose function is “generating a comparison signal.”2” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelNot reached
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites MarkmanPatents in suitUS 9,333,946 - Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00952 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–18 because the Petition failed to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) by omitting required claim-construction analysis.
RulingsInstitution decision- BurdenDenied
“Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites MarkmanPatents in suitUS 8,989,952 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00986 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 3, 4, and 6 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable over Shin despite concerns about Ground 2.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Pet. 7–8). Petitioner’s definition appears consistent with the challenged patent and the prior art of record. See Pet. 7–8. Thus, we apply that definition.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes giving each term its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 7. Patent Owner agrees. Prelim. Resp. 10. On the current record, no terms are in controversy, and the Board does not need to construe any term here.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightOther
“We agree that Petitioner’s obviousness rationale appears to be based on the challenged patent’s disclosure—at least in part. See Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:25–50), 61 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:34–40). Dr. Mark P. Mahon’s corresponding testimony relies on the same parts of the challenged patent, adding little additional technical reasoning or support from the prior art of 8 Petitioner cites “Section 5.8a.1.3.”, but the quoted passage appears in Section 5.8.1.3. Pet. 60 (emphasis added). challenged patent itself raises the possibility that Petitioner has succumbed to impermissible hindsight bias. See Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 815 F.3d 1302, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)) (discussing the “the distortion caused by hindsight bias”); see also InTouch Tech., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It appears that [the expert] relied on the . . . patent itself as her roadmap for putting what she referred to as pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ together.”). Even so, the preliminary record also indicates that it may be inherent in an NB-IoT system that “DCI indicating an SC-MCCH change notification must be transmitted in a different subframe from the DCI indicating a resource for the updated SC-MCCH information.” Pet. 61. This is a factual issue best resolved on a fully developed record.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for patent owner
“We see no basis for using China Standard Time here. “The time and date of receipt of an application filed via EFS-Web is the local time and date in USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia.” Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 502.05 I.C.2 (9th ed. Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015) (emphasis added).7 The MPEP provides an example of how an application filed from the Pacific Time Zone would receive the filing date as of the USPTO’s local time: For example, if an applicant in California officially files a patent application with the USPTO through EFS-Web by clicking on the SUBMIT button at 10 p.m. Pacific Time in California on May 1, that application would be officially received by the USPTO at 1 a.m., local time (i.e., Eastern Daylight Time) on May 2. Accordingly, the application would receive a filing date of May 2. Id. Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Fujishiro is not prior art for this reason. Prelim. Resp. 28–29.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,785,764 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00985 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 8–14 and 16 on all asserted grounds, finding compelling evidence that the challenges could establish unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)InstitutedInstituted
“1–5 weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Fintiv factor 1 is neutral, factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh in favor of denial, and factor 4 weighs marginally against discretionary denial. On balance, the Fintiv factors weigh in favor of denying institution. Because the Fintiv factors favor denial of institution, we must also determine whether the Petition presents compelling merits. See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (“In circumstances where . . . the Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors 1–5 favors denial of institution, the Board shall then assess compelling merits.”).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“or “POSITA”) would have been “familiar with wireless communications networks, equipment, and integrated circuit chips, and would have had at least a working knowledge of communication protocols used in LTE and 5G radio access networks (“RAN”).” Pet. 11–12. According to Petitioner, a POSA would have “at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or an equivalent field, and at least two years of work experience in design, development, and/or testing wireless telecommunication systems” as well as “familiarity with the wireless standards and protocols related to data transmission and network management.” Id. at 12. At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the POSA. Prelim. Resp. 10 (“For purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). Because Petitioner’s description of a POSA appears consistent with the subject matter of the ’566 patent and with the prior art of record and we apply it for purposes of this decision, with the exception of the qualifier “at least” which expand the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. 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 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We find Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner did not meet its obligation to explain how the claims should be construed unavailing because, on the present record, we do not find a material difference between Petitioner’s assertion in this proceeding that the claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and the claim constructions that Petitioner agreed to in the district court litigation. We do not find it necessary to expressly construe any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”). We address whether the Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the cited art meets the limitations at issue infra § III.E.1.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“G. Conclusion on Compelling Merits For the reasons set forth above, we determine that Grounds 1–3 of the Petition present a compelling meritorious challenge. That is, “the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo 4. As the Director explains in OpenSky, however, this finding “should not be taken as a signal to the ultimate conclusion after trial” because “all relevant evidence likely will not have been adduced at the point of institution [and] trial should produce additional evidence that may support a determination in the Final Written Decision that unpatentability has not been adequately proven.” OpenSky, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 at 49– 50. IV. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the accompanying evidence, we find that the Petition presents compelling evidence of the unpatentability of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we grant Petitioners request that we institute inter partes review of claims 8–14 and 16 of the ’566 patent.” slip op. at 25
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,601,566 - Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 103 over Carr and Lauka, with additional references for the dependent-claim grounds, because the challenged claims lack priority support in the ’848 application.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Instacart submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of electronic commerce” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–25). Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like” and that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 19–23). But, as Consumeron’s expert acknowledges, Consumeron’s proposed definition “is not materially different” from Instacart’s. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 22. Accordingly, while we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Instacart our findings and analysis would be the same under Consumeron’s proposal.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“8 Consumeron argues Dr. Houh’s testimony should be given little weight because he “admitted he did not evaluate what the ’848 Application reasonably conveys to a skilled artisan.” Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2011, 74:8– 76:6, 83:4–84:1, 92:22–95:5). We disagree. Dr. Houh’s testimony indicates that he properly considered what the ’848 application reasonably conveys to a POSITA. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52, 56, 58, 61, 65. The portions of his cross-examination testimony cited by Consumeron do not suggest otherwise. For the reasons explained below, we credit Dr. Houh’s testimony over the competing interpretations offered by Consumeron and Dr. Mitzenmacher. 9 The dissent criticizes the majority’s analysis as “overly narrow” and too focused on the preferred embodiment. See Dissent 7–8. We disagree. Our analysis considers the entirety of the ’848 application, including all of the passages cited by Consumeron and the dissent.” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“But it does not follow that an agent encountering a stock-out would necessarily respond according to the specific steps recited in claims 1 and 14.10 For example, instead of sending information about a replacement product, the agent could travel to another location to look for the same product, or notify the customer that the desired product could not be found and terminate the transaction. Because the ’848 application only contemplates scenarios where a product can be located, it does not describe the agent’s response in the event the identified product cannot be located or is unavailable, much less reasonably convey possession of a method comprising the specific, responsive steps in claims 1 and 14.11” slip op. at 17
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“construed the terms “acquisition request” and “acquiring” in our final written decision in the related 1357 IPR to encompass “not only a request for a delivery agent to shop for and purchase goods, but also a request for the agent to pick up or obtain pre-paid goods.” See 1357 IPR, Paper 35 at 11. It is undisputed that the ’465 patent at issue here and the ’835 patent at issue in the 1357 IPR are related and share essentially identical specifications, figures, and claim terms. See Pet. Reply 16; PO Resp. 38 n.6. Thus, for the same reasons as in our final written decision in the related 1357 IPR, we likewise determine here that Instacart’s construction of “acquisition request” is the correct one. See SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Where multiple patents ‘derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.’” (quoting NTP, Inc., v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Consumeron provides no persuasive justification for us to depart from our prior reasoning in the related 1357 IPR.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,238,465 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,238,465 - PTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00886 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 9–16 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and neither obviousness challenge presented compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“When determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution in view of a parallel proceeding, we consider the following factors: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. In evaluating these factors, we “take[] a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“or Ingale in view of Jung. Pet. 18–51. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner’s showing does not rise to the level of “compelling merits” according to the Office’s current guidance and Board precedents. CommScope at 3–4 (quoting Guidance Memo, 4) (“[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges ‘in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.”); OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 at 49–50 (PTAB only ‘plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable’ . . . if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim”). 1. Petitioner’s Showing for Claim 9 Below we provide an element-by-element analysis of Petitioner’s obviousness showing for claim 9. After considering the evidence supporting Petitioner’s obviousness showing, and Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence as to why Petitioners’ obviousness showing is deficient, we consider whether the totality of the evidence rises to the level of compelling merits.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“For the reasons set forth above, and even if we consider Petitioner’s proposed rationale for combining Ingale and Jung to be supported by sufficient rational underpinnings (see e.g., Pet. 24–27), neither Jung nor Ingale, either individually or in the proposed combination set forth by Petitioner teach or suggest limitation 9.6 of claim 9 so as to rise to a compelling, meritorious showing for claim 9. 4. Remaining Claims Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for independent claim 13 (Pet. 58–59) and dependent claims 10–12 and 14–16 (id. at 51–57, 59–60) are substantially similar to Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for claim 9 and are unopposed at this stage by Patent Owner (except for the issues discussed above with respect to independent claim 9) (see e.g., Prelim. Resp. 15). Accordingly, Petitioner’s showing for claims 10–16 do not differ or deviate from the showing with respect to independent claim 9 so as to rise to the level of a compelling, meritorious showing, either for independent claim 9, or any of claims 10–16.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the POSA. Prelim. Resp. 6–7 (“For purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). Petitioner’s description of a POSITA appears consistent with the subject matter of the ’557 patent and with the prior art of record, we apply it for purposes of this Decision. 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 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,019,557 - Nintendo Co., Ltd. / Nintendo Of America Inc. v. Gamevice, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00643 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Willner and Park; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The main distinction between Petitioner’s ordinarily skilled artisan and Patent Owner’s is that Patent Owner’s definition requires “a mechanical engineering degree” whereas Petitioner’s definition allows for a degree in “mechanical, electrical, or computer engineering.” See Pet. Reply 16 (citing Pet. 13). However, Mr. Kitchen states that he qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art based on Patent Owner’s proffered definition “even without an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering” because he has “over 40 years of experience in the design and development of interactive products, including specifically with respect to handheld gaming devices.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–30). Mr. Kitchen asserts that his experience is in “the same category of products claimed in the ’393 patent and described in the prior art references at issue in this proceeding.” Id. In view of this and based on the complete record before us, we view the parties’ proposals as substantially the same because Petitioner’s proposed definition includes the requisite education Patent Owner’s definition requires. Thus, we find (as we did in the Institution Decision) that Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’393 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 20–21 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). More particularly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the education component for the level of ordinary skill in the art for computing gaming devices would be limited to just mechanical engineering. We note that, based on the record and evidence before us, our decision and analysis would be the same applying either party’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“After reviewing the full record, we determine that it is unnecessary to construe the term “confinement structures,” as it appears in the limitation “a pair of confinement structures” to reach a determination in this proceeding. 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)). However, we will address the parties’ dispute regarding whether the prior art discloses or teaches physical component(s) that hold(s) a computing device within our merits analysis below. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other claim terms and we find that no other terms require express construction to resolve the controversy between the parties. Accordingly, we do not construe any other claim terms expressly. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“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., 200 F.3d at 803).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“First, the test for obviousness “is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, . . . but rather whether ‘a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pet. Reply 11–12 (arguing the same). Second, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed combination would fail “to retain[] computing device 10 in position during normal user operation” because Park’s adjustable bridge “configuration does not allow mobile phone (1) to be seated for stability in the device.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 42; Ex. 2004 ¶ 68). At the outset, we note that Patent Owner’s argument mischaracterizes the disclosure of Park. Instead, we find Park discloses that a “basic configuration of [Park’s] game pad device for a mobile phone according to the present invention” “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 41. Although Park discloses that “mobile phone (1) may come loose during gaming or become detached in severe cases” (id. ¶ 41), we do not view this disclosure to otherwise negate Park’s teaching that its adjustable bridge (30,40) “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Id. We credit Mr. Kitchen’s declaration testimony to that effect. See Ex. 1033 ¶ 47 (declaring that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood this disclosure to mean that a computing device (mobile phone) would have been secured by the device for normal use . . . as part of a handheld gaming device.”).” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner and find more credible Mr. Kitchen’s opinion regarding “normal user operation.” In doing so, we credit Mr. Kitchen’s opinion that Willner’s sidewalls would “function to secure the sides of the computing device and hold it in place” and, “[i]n the combination, Park’s bridge would be adjusted to reduce the length of the bridge and thereby ‘mount’ a computing device by having Willner’s side walls (confinement structures) ‘apply pressure’ to opposing sides of the computing device.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–156 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38–41). We note that the ’393 patent operates in a similar manner using a sufficient compressive load to hold a computing device. More particularly, the ’393 patent discloses that [t]he expansion and contraction of the distance between the pair of confinement structures 316, facilitates placement of the computing device 302 between the pair of confinement structures 316, the application of sufficient compressive load being placed on the computing device 302 to securely hold the computing device between the pair of confinement structures 316. Ex. 1001, 10:11–20. Thus, we find Mr. Kitchen’s opinion credible and supported by the complete record. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Willner and Park teaches or suggests “a pair of confinement structures,” as recited by limitation 1[b][1].” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,391,393 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,391,393 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–22 were not shown unpatentable because Mills did not disclose the required embedded structure and Markel combined with Mills did not teach it; the revised motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
“Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend asserts that in “the event the Board finds at least one challenged [Revised Motion to Amend] claim unpatentable, [Patent Owner] respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion with respect to the corresponding proposed substitute claim(s).” Paper 27, 1. Because we determine that Petitioner has not established that any of the challenged claims 1–4 and 8–22 are unpatentable, Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend is moot.” slip op. at 61
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“structure where a lead is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from other embodiments where a lead is merely positioned against or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 36–37. The Specification describes distinct embodiments such as “lead 472 of the heart sensor can be positioned against the back surface of bezel 460,” or “[a]lternatively, lead 472 can be placed within the thickness of bezel 460 (e.g., in a pocket within the bezel wall), but underneath the outer surface of the bezel.” Ex. 9:44–48. We agree with Patent Owner, and Dr. Kenny, that “[t]his passage distinguishes a lead that is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from a lead that is merely ‘positioned against’ or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 33–35). See also Ex. 2008, 31:10–33:18, 109:18–110:19 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Oslan, suggesting that a first component or object in parallel contact with and positioned under a second component or object would not necessarily indicate that the first component or object is embedded in the second component or object). Similarly, we also agree that “the claims of the ’257 use the term ‘embedded in’ while also using the word ‘embedded’ in other contexts, which” indicates distinct claim scope for “the term ‘embedded in,’” versus “the broader term ‘embedded.’” Ex. 2003 ¶ 38. For instance, claim 9 distinctly requires “embedded with,” which is a broader term that, according to Dr. Kenny, encompasses embodiments where a lead may be adjacent/parallel to the first portion of the enclosure. Id.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“under the exterior of the first portion” (see Pet. 21–22, 24–25; Pet. Reply 4); and (3) leaf spring 62 is embedded in housing 12 and electrode 14 (see Pet. 22–24). None of Petitioner’s mappings disclose every element of claim 1 and Petitioner improperly jumps between these various mappings without fully examining a single mapping for each and every limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 18–25. In essence, Petitioner invites the Board to piece together a single theory that meets all claim elements from these disparate theories that each require distinct structure within Mills. See Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD., IPR2017-01112, Paper 11, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2017) (“Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role of archeologist of the record, which invitation we decline.”).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00422 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 6, 8–10, 21, 23–26, 29–34, 38–40, 42, 43, 45–53, 55, 59–61, 63–70, 76, 81, 82, 85, 87–89, 100, 102–104, 107–115, 117, 120–124, 126, 129–136, 142, 145–147, 149, and …
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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) (2024). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“In light of the guidance provided by the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that we should consider this petition along with the petition in IPR2024-00421. Both petitions rely on the same primary references, Baig, Costa, and either Zwicky or Banga690. Because the ’260 has a large number of claims (152) spanning over 10 columns, this is one of those situations where more than one petition is necessary for Petitioner to address each of those claims. We do not find Patent Owner’s argument regarding the number of claims asserted in the litigation to be persuasive. See Prelim. Resp. 7 (“Importantly, Petitioner does not allege that ‘the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation . . . .’” (quoting CPTG 59)). First, we have reviewed the complaint Patent Owner asserted against Petitioner and do not see any limits on which claims are asserted. See Ex. 3001. Second, Patent Owner has not identified any claims that it is not asserting. See Prelim. Resp. Therefore, based on the current record, Patent Owner is asserting all 152 claims in litigation. Moreover, we are not aware of any legal authority that limits inter partes review to only claims challenged in litigation. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this petition.14” slip op. at 14
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Unlike Adaptics, which involved potentially hundreds of distinct grounds challenging each claim due to the use of “and/or” in the catch-all ground (see Adaptics, Paper 20 at 19), the Petition only has, at most, two grounds for each claim (see Pet. 4). Nor has Patent Owner shown any evidence of improper “shadow grounds.” Although Patent Owner points to the size of the declaration testimony and the number of exhibits relied on by the declarants, Patent Owner has not pointed to any examples of alleged improper use of the testimony or exhibits. We decline to perform analysis that is missing from the Preliminary Response. See United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”); DeSilva 181 F.3d at 866–67 (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). To be clear, we make no judgment on the propriety of the declarants’ testimony or the cited exhibits at this time. If appropriate, Patent Owner can challenge (1) the admissibility of the exhibits and testimony and (2) specific arguments as going beyond the grounds stated in the Petition during the trial. But simply including a significant amount of testimony and a number of supporting references is not, by itself, a reason to find that the particularly requirement is not met.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had “a degree in computer or electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and two years of experience with the design and/or implementation of network-based content delivery systems and Internet advertising.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 144–49). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the field of the invention of the ’260 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art.12” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,861,260
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.