- PTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00620 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–8, 14–22, and 25 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Tobita obviousness grounds and declining General Plastic denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a relevant technical degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Materials Science, Physics, or the like, and experience in active matrix display design and electroluminescence.” Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 36). Patent Owner criticizes Petitioner’s proposed definition because it “entails only general ‘circuit design’ experience with no experience in active matrix display design and electroluminescence, the subject matter of the ’593 Patent.” Id. at 17; see also Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 38–39 (Dr. Wolfe’s testimony regarding the same). In particular, Patent Owner argues that “[i]mportant aspects and considerations of the pixel circuit design are unique to the context of active matrix display design and to electroluminescent displays.” Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 38). Patent Owner additionally notes that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the ITC Investigation adopted Patent Owner’s definition. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2018, 12). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although “[t]he challenged patent pertains generally to the field of OLED displays,” it is directed “more particularly to the circuitry used to drive and control the pixels that comprise the light-generating elements of the display.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 29; see also Ex. 1001, 1:16– 18 (describing the Field of the Invention as relating to “a stage circuit and an organic light emitting display using the same”). Moreover, we note, for example, that claim 1 does not include any limitations directed to “active matrix displays” or any other particular type of display, which suggests that an ordinarily skilled artisan need not have had specific experience designing such displays. See Ex. 1001, 9:43–45 (reciting “[a] stage circuit”). In addition, Patent Owner’s proposed definition is imprecise because it does not quantify the amount of experience possessed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. Therefore, at this stage, we adopt Petitioner’s definition because we find it to be more consistent with the teachings of the ’593 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededOther
“For purposes of this Decision, we apply the same construction as the ITC ALJ, i.e., that controlling the voltage of the second node does not require the voltage of the second node to be determined by the first driver alone. This is supported by contrast with another limitation in claim 1, which expressly recites direct control: “the signal of the third input terminal directly controls.” Ex. 1001, 9:58 (emphasis added). This is also supported by a paragraph in the Specification of the ’593 patent explaining that the Specification uses the word “directly” in contexts where the same is intended. Id. at 4:19–26. Further, as noted by the ITC ALJ, the Specification of the ’593 patent states that the second driver “controls the voltage on the first node” where such control is accomplished in conjunction with the outputting unit. Ex. 2018, 31–32 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:60–62, claims 1, 15). This supports the ITC ALJ’s understanding with respect to the first driver, i.e., that control can occur in conjunction with other elements.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Specifically, Petitioner relies on the timing diagram in Figure 21B of Kimura to illustrate the operation of the circuit in Figure 27C. Pet. 19 (reproducing Ex. 1004, Fig. 21B). Petitioner acknowledges that the timing diagram “is not specific to the device of Figure 27C.” Id. Still, Petitioner contends the Figure 27C circuit “would (or at least obviously could) be supplied with input signals in the same manner and with the same timing” because it includes “the same input and output lines and many of the same transistors as Kimura’s other circuits.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160–165). According to the timing diagram, the potential of node 13 (V13) is shown at its highest level during period D. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 21B. Petitioner also cites Kimura for teaching that “the potential of the node 13 becomes an H level.” Pet. 18 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 256). Yet Kimura describes the Figure 27C circuit’s operation at period D differently: “[I]n a period D, the potential of the node 13 can be lowered. Therefore, dielectric breakdown or deterioration of the transistor connected to the node 13 (e.g., the transistor 102, the transistor 203, the transistor 205, or the transistor 206) can be prevented.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 286 (emphasis added). And Petitioner cites this very teaching in its analysis of limitation [1-B]. See Pet. 20–21. This inconsistency undermines Petitioner’s argument that “the device of Figure 27C . . . would (or at least obviously could) be supplied with input signals in the same manner and with the same timing.” Id. at 19. In light of this inconsistency, and in the absence of a sufficient explanation as to why Kimura’s teachings about different circuits apply to the Figure 27C circuit on which Petitioner relies, we find Petitioner’s analysis of claim 1 to be deficient. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Kimura.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDecided for petitioner
“presents facts that are different from those in General Plastic because Petitioner here did not use a prior Board decision or a prior preliminary response as a roadmap. Given the lack of road-mapping specific to our proceedings, we find that Factor 3 weighs strongly against exercising discretion to deny institution. Further, we note that “factors 1–3 only weigh in favor of discretionary denial when there are ‘road-mapping’ concerns under factor 3 or other concerns under factor 2.” Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00861, Paper 19 at 5 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2022) (precedential) (“Code200”). Although Patent Owner alleges concerns under Factor 2 insofar as Petitioner knew or should have known of the asserted references at the time of the petition in IPR2023-01221 (Prelim. Resp. 9–12; PO Prelim. Sur-reply 2), we find such concerns to be of minimal significance where there is no road-mapping. Thus, we consider Factor 1 in conjunction with Factors 2 and 3 (see Code200 at 5) and find that Factors 1– 3 weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution. Similarly, the timing of the second petition in relation to the filing of the first petition (Factor 4), and when petitioner learned of the prior art (Factor 5), are more pertinent to the situation where the second petition is filed by a party using prior art allegedly newly discovered after receiving the Board’s unfavorable decision, as was the case in General Plastic, or after a preliminary response was filed in the first case. General Plastic at 10. That is not the situation before us here. We also do not agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 4–9) that the interplay between the instant case and the ITC Investigation implicates the same concerns from General Plastic about abuse or gamesmanship from multiple, staggered petitions. See General Plastic at 16–17. As in Code200, we find that “Patent Owner’s concerns of fairness are outweighed by the benefits to the patent system of improving patent quality by reviewing the merits of the challenges raised in the petitions, which have not been addressed to date.” Code200 at 6. Thus, we determine that Factors 4 and 5 do not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. Regarding Factor 6, Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Board should not expend its finite resources to endorse Petitioner’s second bite at the apple.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Nevertheless, because the earlier proceeding was terminated at Petitioner’s request, the Board has not previously considered the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions, and the Board’s involvement in the parties’ disputes related to the ’593 patent has been minimal up to this juncture. In the absence of meaningful efficiency concerns, we find that Factor 6 does not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. For Factor 7, we know of no reason why we could not meet the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination within one year of institution, so we also find that this factor does not weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution. After considering Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments, we conclude that the General Plastic factors weigh against exercising our discretion to deny review.” slip op. at 61
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,330,593 - Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Sep 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00419 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–26 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14 are obvious over Baig, Banga507, Banga690, and McFarland.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “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). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Furthermore, we deny Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny petition or due to the alleged lack of particularity in the Petition. We therefore institute inter partes review on all claims and all grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“Consistent with the Board’s practice for handling parallel petitions, Petitioner filed a Petition Ranking (Paper 3, “Notice”). See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019).2 In the Notice, Petitioner ranks this Petition first among the two petitions challenging the ’015 patent and the petition in IPR2024-00420 second. Notice 1. As is discussed in our separate decision in IPR2024-00420, entered concurrently, we have discretion to deny a parallel petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In view of Petitioner’s ranking and our assessment of the 1 Those ten additional petitions are the following: IPR2024-00413, IPR2024-00414, IPR2024-00415, IPR2024-00416, IPR2024-00417, IPR2024-00418, IPR2024-00421, IPR2024-00422, IPR2021-00423, and IPR2024-00424. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. issue in our institution decision in IPR2024-00420.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“violate[s] the ‘particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(A)(3).” Prelim. Resp. 8–13. Patent Owner cites the Petition’s eleven grounds based on nine “express” prior art references and 33 other “shadow”9 references and exhibits. Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner asserts that “it is unclear which references Petitioner intends to be (or not to be) part of each of the grounds in its Petition.” Id. at 12. Patent Owner complains about the length of the petition and accompanying declarations. Id. (“The Petition itself is seventynine pages long (13,850 words), and attaches fifty-six exhibits. One of those exhibits is a 349 page declaration from one of Petitioner’s experts.”) (citations omitted). Patent Owner cites the Board’s informative decision in Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co., IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 at 24 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2019). We decline to exercise our discretion to deny this Petition for lack of particularity. Patent Owner’s reliance on Adaptics is misplaced. Adaptics is distinguishable from this case. In Adaptics, the petitioner’s use of “and/or” in its challenges yielded “hundreds of possible combinations.” Adaptics, Paper 20 at 19. In addition, the petitioner in Adaptics asserted a “catch-all” ground asserting obviousness as an alternative if its extensive anticipation 8 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial. 9 Patent Owner explains that these are exhibits “attached to the Petition and expressly cited and relied upon by Petitioner’s experts.” Prelim. Resp. 11. particularity, the Board cited this “catch-all” ground as “the worst offender.” Id. at 18. While we agree that the Petition in this case could have been more concise, we disagree that it is so “voluminous and excessive” as to warrant denial for lack of sufficient particularity. See Adaptics, Paper 20 at 18. slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“institution, Petitioner establishes sufficiently that the combination of Baig, Banga507, Banga690, and McFarland teaches or suggests each of the limitations recited in independent claim 1, and that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of those references. See Pet. 9–38. Petitioner asserts that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have been motivated and would have found it obvious to incorporate these teachings of Banga507, Banga690, and McFarland in Baig’s system to select targeted advertisements for groups of users demonstrating a pattern of accessing the Internet from a shared AP (e.g., at a coffee shop every Sunday) based on the group members’ collective preferences because doing so would have allowed Baig’s modified system to advantageously improve the relevance of the targeted advertisements provided to the group members.” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 39; Ex. 1015 ¶ 54; Lett Decl. ¶¶ 142–146). Petitioner presents an element-by element analysis supported by expert testimony. Id. at 15–30; Lett Decl. ¶¶ 151–237. At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the merits of Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,564,015 - Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00459 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 and 10–31 are unpatentable under §103 over the asserted combinations involving Chandra or Keohane.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties substantially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and . . . at least two years’ practical experience with computer networking and computer security.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner asserts that its positions would be the same under either proposal. Id. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposal as more consistent with the prior art and the ’825 patent, but our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“claims 1, 15, 21, and 27 recite methods in which a first network security appliance of a CSF receives network traffic to inspect, determines whether the traffic was transmitted from a second network security appliance that executed security operations on the traffic, determines network security operations for the first network security appliance to execute based on any security operations executed by the second network security appliance, and executes operations on the traffic. Ex. 1001, 10:58–11:17, 12:31–60, 13:20– 47, 14:13–37. As claimed, network traffic may travel in one direction from a second network security appliance to a first network security appliance. The ’825 patent describes unidirectional traffic as “one embodiment” of the CSF. A first network security appliance receives incoming network traffic and determines if the incoming network traffic is transmitted from a second network security appliance based on the source address of the traffic and determines operations that the second network security appliance executed. Ex. 1001, 2:48–56. In this embodiment, traffic travels in a single incoming direction between network security appliances. Tr. 30:22–31:18. The ’825 patent also describes the “cooperation” in a CSF as “[t]he network packet carrying the flag is transmitted to another member node at the next hop.” Ex. 1001, 6:28–34 (emphasis added); id. at 8:3–8. Traffic always flows from one hop to a next hop along the same path between root 220 at the edge of the network and each particular endpoint (leaf) shown in Figure 2 below. Traffic does not flow along different interconnected paths when it travels from root 220 to an endpoint leaf 240a–240d, 250 as Patent Owner asserts is required of a CSF. PO Resp. 13–15. Figure 2 is “an exemplary topology of a cooperative security fabric (CSF)” with Patent Owner’s annotation of network traffic paths. Ex. 1001, 2:29–31; PO Resp. 16. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to branch 230a to leaf 240a to the blue end node. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to leaf 250 to the red end node. Traffic from the green node travels along a single path to leaf 240d to branch 230b to root 220. Network security appliances only cooperate along a single red, green,” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“(3) Analysis We agree with Petitioner that “the claims only require two appliances and traffic to go from one appliance to the other.” Reply 11. Nothing in the claims or element 1[a] requires network traffic to originate from outside the private network or the CSF. Dr. Black testifies that the background of the ’825 patent describes a need for a CSF to coordinate operations performed on network traffic that is “transmitted to/from the network” to avoid or reduce redundant operations among members of the CSF” (Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 44, 50), but Dr. Black describes the claimed network fabric and CSF entirely in the context of controlling network traffic transmitted within the enterprise network topology 200 as illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’825 patent (id. ¶ 52), which we discussed in Section II.B.1. supra and reproduce again below. In Figure 2, Patent Owner annotates paths taken by network traffic within network topology 200 comprising root 220, branches 230a, 230b, and leaves 240a–d, 250 within network 200. PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2004 ¶ 52. In addition, Chandra’s network 102 is “a collection of individual networks, interconnected with each other and functioning as a single large network.”7 Ex. 1004 ¶ 21. Network 102 can include LANs, WANs, and/or MANs. Id. As a result, network devices 104 located in different networks of network 102 transmit to one another via edge network links 218 within this internetwork of networks 102. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 21–30, Figs. 1, 2; Pet. 22–26. Transmitting and receiving CEs 208, 214 are security-based devices at the edges of different networks in network 102 to control incoming network traffic sent between transmitting and receiving network devices 206, 212 located in different networks. Ex. 1004 ¶ 30. A plurality of CEs can be associated with a single PE to receive incoming network traffic from a transmitting CE. Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Thus, network traffic is transmitted from network devices 104 connected to a plurality of CEs that connect to other CEs via edge network link 218 and to other network devices 104 connected to those CEs “along multiple interconnected paths” (see id. ¶¶ 28–30) that satisfies Patent Owner’s definition of CSF (PO Resp. 13). The sending and receiving CEs “constitute multiple cooperating network security appliances” contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 38), as do CEs 208, 214.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Buruganahalli’s topology of devices 50, 52, 54 coordinates security operations that they perform on network data 58 sent from network device 54 to network device 52 to network device 50 from one hop to the next hop. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 30–32, 34–36, 38–40, 46–48, Fig. 3. We agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious to update Chandra’s metadata tag for a multi-CE path to indicate actions taken, as Buruganahalli teaches, to reduce latency and resource waste. Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 28)). Dr. Franz testifies it would have been obvious to arrange Chandra’s different network security appliance CEs in series so that traffic passed through multiple CEs that performed different security functions in a CSF before reaching a receiving PE, as Chandra and Buruganahalli teach or suggest. Ex. 1019 ¶ 60 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125). Patent Owner’s argument that the CEs are not in series does not address Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to place them in series, as Buruganahalli discloses, to perform different security operations on network traffic. Pet. 54; Ex. 1019 ¶ 60; Cf. Sur-reply 20–21. Petitioner contends that Chandra’s system also transmits data packets with updated labels to devices in an extended virtual private network (VPN) shown in Figure 8. Pet. 54. Petitioner asserts it was well known to connect a private network of a remote company site to another network such as an enterprise network using a VPN tunnel, and it would have been obvious to attach the VPN in Figure 8 to a private network as an extension of Figure 2’s private network. Pet. 54–56. Petitioner contends that, in such instances, a receiving CE would transmit data packets with the updated label to a receiving device in an extended network using the transmitting and receiving end configurations shown in Figures 2 and 8 of Chandra. Id. at 54. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to connect Chandra’s Figure 2 private network to Chandra’s Figure 8 VPN network to extend enterprise network communications so the next device in the extended VPN network would be “a next network appliance participating in the CSF” as claimed. Pet. 54–56; Reply 26–27 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶ 61). We also agree with Dr. Franz who testifies: Contrary to the PO’s assertion that “Petitioner…provides no rationale for why a POSITA would modify Chandra by combining Figures 2 and 8, or explain why a POSITA would reasonably expect it to succeed (POR, 45),” I provided ample reasons why a POSITA would have found it obvious that the VPN in Chandra’s Figure 8 could be attached as an extension to the private network in Chandra’s Figure 2 as illustrated below. In fact, I provided an example of a widely circulated official publication by the U.S. National Security Agency containing a reference architecture that recommended cascading multiple VPN solutions for added security. (Franz. Decl. ¶126-130.) Ex. 1019 ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 126–130).” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,084,825 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,084,825 - Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00458 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 21–27 are unpatentable under § 103 over the five asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 (2020) as to the patentability of the claims on which we instituted trial. Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 21–27 of the ’678 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a B.S. in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, with at least two years’ experience in computer networking/security.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 16–17 (the positions in the PO Response would be the same under either parties’ proposal). The parties’ proposals are substantially the same. Our decision and analysis would be the same under either party’s proposal.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“c. Analysis The ’678 patent describes storage containers as “directories, directory structures, web directories, folders, . . . files and namespaces of the same.” Id. at 6:44–47; id. at 10:12–15. However, it discloses that data is “stored in the namespaces, directories, folders, files or other storage containers of one or more cloud platforms,” which seems to equate namespaces with storage containers. Id. at 9:23–25. In claim 6, “the step of configuring the namespaces comprises storing content of the file as filenames.” Id. at 20:20–22. One definition of “namespace” is a “grouping of one or more names that represent individual objects within the group in a shared computing environment, such as a network.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition 130 (Microsoft Press 2002) (Ex. 3001). “The names within a namespace are unique, are created according to the same rules, and can be resolved into a particular identifying item of information, such as an IP address or a network device.” Ex. 3001.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“set of names available for naming things.’” Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 101; Ex. 1014 (Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms)); Tr. 5:18–20, 7:21– 8:1. This definition is consistent with the extrinsic evidence cited above. Patent Owner largely agrees with this proposed definition. Dr. Black testifies that “to the extent a namespace is applied to object identifiers, it will define the set of allowable identifiers within a particular context.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 69 (cited in PO Resp. 19). Dr. Black agrees with Dr. Lee’s testimony “that a directory named ‘documents’ is a namespace for the files within that directory––within that ‘documents’ namespace, files can be identified by simply referring to the file name, such as ‘foo.’” Id. ¶ 68. Patent Owner however, asserts that “a name itself (such as an identifier that identifies an object) is not a namespace.” PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner asserts that the ’678 patent provides “an example of creating a namespace for file chunks as part of the encryption process” as “each chunk can be encrypted based on public and private/secret keys defined by the encryption module 210” “where keys are managed based on user-assigned policies.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]hese policies therefore create a namespace that defines the naming convention for the file chunks (e.g. encryption based on a particular key).” Id. Patent Owner asserts that “storing the file chunks in a folder creates a namespace scope for the file chunks” and namespaces are configured by storing file content as file names. Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 71); see Tr. 8:5–11, 11:2–12:11. d. Conclusion In view of the foregoing, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “namespace” as “a set of names available for naming things.” Consistent with various exemplary embodiments described in the ’678 patent, the set of names available for naming things may be based on a policy that defines the naming convention for files or file chunks, and a namespace may be created by storing files or file chunks in a folder to create a namespace scope for the files or file chunks.” slip op. at 8
Patent outcomesUS 9,280,678 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,280,678 - PTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00505 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–14, 16–19, and 21–24 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious over Gai.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Fintiv, we agree that it indicates that this factor weighs in favor of discretionary denial because the trial date is scheduled to occur before the final written decision deadline. However, the trial date here is closer to the deadline for the final written decision, with only a two-month difference here rather than the six-month difference in Fintiv, which increases the possibility here that any unforeseen delay in the district court proceeding could cause the order of those two events to reverse. Fintiv at 9 (“If the court’s trial date is at or around the same time as the projected statutory deadline . . . the decision whether to institute will likely implicate other factors.”). Therefore, we find this factor weighs only slightly in favor of denying institution.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“that Gai, the sole reference asserted in Ground 1, was presented to and considered by the Office during the prosecution of the ’986 patent. Prelim. Resp. 30–31. We agree. Gai appears on the face of the ’986 patent, is incorporated by reference into it, and was submitted in an IDS. See Ex. 1001, 3:15–41; Ex. 1002, 30 (IDS with Examiner acknowledgment). Petitioner acknowledges that the first part of Advanced Bionics is satisfied, so we proceed to the second part of the framework. Pet. 100.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“access switches on the second port.” Ex. 1001, claim 5. We find that Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for us to find a reasonable likelihood that Gai teaches or suggests dependent claims 5 and 17 at this time. Dependent claim 17 is similar to claim 5, but depends on claim 16 (which in turn depends on independent claim 13), adding “wherein the protocol processor is adapted to update the entries in the database to point to the second access port before receiving the communication traffic from the one or more access switches on the second port.” Id. at claim 17. These claims both require the switch implementing the method for rapid recovery, such as switch 124 in Petitioner’s example discussed above, to update its filtering database before receiving communication traffic from access switches, such as access switches 115 and 116 in Petitioner’s example. Pet. 58. That effectively means that switch 124 must update its database immediately upon transitioning to the new port either before or at the same time it transmits dummy messages to the access switches. So this differs from the analysis for claim 4 because allowing the corresponding entry in the filtering database to time out will not be sufficient to ensure that the entries will be updated before receiving communication traffic from one of the access switches. There is no express disclosure from the portions of Gai cited by Petitioner of immediately updating the database on the switch implementing the method. Pet. 57–58, 94; Ex. 1005, 2:30–41, 5:36–39, 5:54–56, 12:62– 65. Based on the current record, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s explanation of why Gai allegedly teaches or suggests this limitation. In the section addressing dependent claim 5, Dr. Houh asserts that: are transmitted before any communication traffic is received by the switch. As I discuss in Section VIII.A.5.ii, the filtering database is updated before transmitting the dummy messages. Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood that the database entries would have been updated before receiving any communication traffic from the access switches. Ex. 1003 ¶ 139. However, Section VIII.A.5.ii of Dr. Houh’s declaration relates to dependent claim 4 which does not have any timing requirement, and the citations to Gai there do not describe that the switch first updates its filtering database before sending the dummy message.12 Id. ¶¶ 133–136. Therefore, the conclusory and unsupported assertions that Gai teaches or suggests this limitation, or renders it obvious to a POSITA, do not persuade us that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on these claims, at least at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 58
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Id. Therefore, after a failure and switchover, edge switch 124 transmits dummy traffic to access switch 116 over the second link. Id. Based on the current record, we agree that this example is at least suggested by Gai’s teaching that “the method and apparatus manifests, in part, as a series of novel commands that may be entered at the devices. The devices, moreover, may be classified as either access switches or backbone switches.” Ex. 1005, 6:6–9. Switch 124 is a backbone switch because it interconnects at least access switches 114–116, and, according to Gai, the invention can be implemented on that switch by entering the corresponding commands on it. Id. The rest of the example, whereby ports are switched based on a failure and dummy traffic that is transmitted to the access switches updates their filtering databases, also follows Gai’s teaching. Pet. 39–46; Ex. 1005, 5:35– 6:12. Patent Owner responds to this argument by asserting that “Gai itself never describes backbone switch 124 in such a way,” disputing it could transmit dummy traffic to access switch 116 over the second link. Prelim. Resp. 10–11. Rather, according to Patent Owner, “Gai clearly explains that such an action is in response to a port failure in access switch 114, not in teaching to the preferred embodiment that describes the failure occurring at switch 114, which we do not find warranted in view of the general teaching from Gai discussed above saying the invention can also be implemented on backbone switches. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A reference must be considered for everything it teaches.”).” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,917,986 - PTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00503 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Kovvali and Kalman.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“on May 8, 2024 (see 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)(1)), and none of the relevant deadlines for fact discovery or expert discovery, or the date of the scheduled Markman hearing, will have passed by that date. As described by Petitioner, fact and expert discovery do not close until next year, the parties have not yet exchanged preliminary claim constructions, and the Markman hearing is not scheduled until December 4, 2024, approximately four months after our deadline for this decision. See Pet. 83. We also find that Petitioner’s diligence in filing the Petition only about a month after receiving Patent Owner’s infringement contentions, and only four months after the filing of the original complaint, supports this factor weighing more strongly against exercising our discretion to deny the Petition. See id. at 82. Accordingly, in view of the parties’ respective arguments, we find that factor 3 weighs strongly against discretionary denial. 4. Overlapping Issues with the Parallel Proceeding Under this factor, Petitioner stipulates that “[i]f the Board institutes trial, Petitioner will cease asserting in the co-pending litigation the combination of references on which trial is instituted for the claims, to the extent Petitioner even asserts the same combination in the district court.” Pet. 83. We find that this stipulation “mitigates to some degree the concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board, as well as concerns for potentially conflicting decisions.” Sand at 12. More specifically, if we institute, then by stipulation the court in the Cisco litigation will not have to determine whether the challenged claims of the ’279 patent would have been obvious in view of Kovvali, Kalman, Masters, and RFC 2892, and therefore the risk of inconsistent results is also reduced. against discretionary denial because the stipulation is limited in nature.10 Prelim. Resp. 20. We agree, and therefore find this factor weighs slightly against discretionary denial. Sand at 12 n.5 (“Petitioner stipulates only that it will not pursue, in district court, the ‘same grounds’ presented in the Petition in this case. . . . Petitioner could have stipulated that it would not pursue any grounds raised or that could have reasonable been raised in an IPR . . . . Doing so might have tipped this factor more conclusively in its favor.”).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Decision below, Petitioner relies on Kovvali alone as teaching all but two steps recited in independent claim 1, and Petitioner similarly relies on Kovvali alone as teaching all but two limitations of independent claim 15. See Pet. 26–50, 63–64. For those additional steps and limitations, Petitioner relies on combined teachings of Kovvali and Kalman. See id. at 42–47. As Petitioner points out and Patent Owner acknowledges, however, Kovvali was not previously presented to the Office during prosecution of the application for the ’279 patent. See id. at 80; Prelim. Resp. 26. Moreover, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s assertion that Drake has “similar[ities] to how Petitioner characterizes Kovvali,” Patent Owner identifies only that “Drake teaches a ‘management system for local area networks’ that features an ‘allocator,’ which determined ‘if requested facilities are available, and if so, reserves these facilities for the requesting station.’” Prelim. Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2003, code (57)). In contrast, Petitioner’s reliance on Kovvali goes significantly beyond such high-level generalizations, providing a detailed mapping of Kovvali’s teachings to, for limitations [15.1]–[15.5] and [15.8] of independent claim 15, as well as to the additional limitations recited in each of dependent claims 2, 5, 11–14, and 18, with supporting testimony from Dr. Mir’s declaration. Pet. 27–42, 48–51, 55–56, 59–64, 67 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–103, 120–130, 146–150, 160–185). Notably, Patent Owner does not expressly contest Petitioner’s arguments with respect to those limitations at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. Nor does Patent Owner cite any evidence of arguments substantially the same as those presented by Petitioner having been presented during prosecution. Accordingly, on this record and after taking into account Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), cited by Advanced Bionics as relevant to the first part of the two-part framework set forth therein (see Advanced Bionics at 9–10), we are not persuaded that the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or that the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office. Accordingly, we need not proceed to the second part of the framework, and we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 20
- 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. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the ’279 patent in January 2001 “would have had a working knowledge of the network communication technologies that are pertinent to the ’279 patent, including network flow allocation in a ring topology.” Pet. 12. More specifically, Petitioner argues, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a master’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to network communications and resource allocations,” where “[a]dditional work experience can substitute for specific educational background, and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner represents that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition” for the purposes of the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 3. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’279 patent, and, therefore, we likewise adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,035,279 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00286 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 17–21 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Houston and Garcia render at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Thus, Patent Owner has shown that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Turning to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. As Petitioner argues, there is no evidence that the references in question were meaningfully addressed during the prosecution of the ’520 patent — there was no evaluation of the art or articulation regarding any arguments applying that art. Pet. 11. We note that the IPR petitions were submitted only after the prosecution came to a purported end with an Issue Notification — submission of the petitions briefly postponed issuance, but resulted in no further substantive actions other than a later issuance.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Accordingly, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s specific arguments directed to claim requirement 17[e], and its arguments discussed above generally relating to all of Petitioner’s grounds, for the reasons discussed above, for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded that the record sufficiently supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim requirements 17[e] and 17[f]. d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 17 Based on our analysis set forth above, including our analysis of Patent Owner’s arguments regarding secondary considerations of nonobviousness, we determine, on the current record and for purposes of this Decision, that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Houston and Garcia.” slip op. at 45
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest claimed priority date of the ’520 patent (September 22, 2012): would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field and two or more years of experience in a related field such as networked computer systems using Internet protocols. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3–4 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not pertinent to Petitioner’s proffered combination of Houston with Garcia as applied to the remaining challenged claims 17–21. As discussed further below, Petitioner relies on Garcia as supplementing Houston for details regarding the requirements of generating and sending an email with a link to a folder but without a file attachment, and for synchronizing folders and providing interfaces for display of shared folders. Pet. 26–27, 36–39, 57–60. For the challenged claims, Petitioner does not rely on the combination to modify Houston’s system such that, when an icon for a shared folder is created in Houston’s interface at an invited user’s client, the client does not store a file in the shared folder — that aspect of the Houston/Garcia combination is only relevant to claims 1–8, which have been disclaimed. Pet. 40–41; Ex. 2045. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument, that Houston teaches away from combining with Garcia to delay storing a file when a folder is shared, is not applicable to Petitioner’s challenges of claim 17–21. The fact that the Houston system ensures the availability of synchronized local copies of files at each user and criticizes systems that store documents remotely, such as in Garcia, is irrelevant to those claims. On this record, nothing about that particular difference in the approaches of Houston and Garcia would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from adopting Houston to take advantage of the teachings in Garcia regarding use of email and folder interfaces. In sum, Patent Owner focuses on a specific irrelevant detail of Houston regarding local storage of files, whereas Petitioner relies on other features of the combination of Houston and Garcia. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). At this stage, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the email and folder interface teachings of Garcia to modify Houston. Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 84–93, 102–104, 148, 151–152. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Houston and Garcia.” slip op. at 35
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520 - Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00186 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Scoda did not disclose the claimed interception limitation and Hallak did not disclose execution of the removed script after removal.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the invention of the ’091 patent would have had master’s degree or higher in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, or would have had a bachelor’s degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in internet communications. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt the level of ordinary skill as articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, this proposal appears to be consistent with the ’091 patent and the prior art of record and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Williams.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We find that the parties’ agreed upon construction is supported by the record before us and apply it in our patentability analysis below, requiring the embedded script to be removed before that script is executed. We determine that no other claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“during trial, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Scoda discloses intercepting a web page sent from a We agree with Patent Owner that portions of Scoda cited in the Petition do not disclose a web page, let alone one sent from a server and addressed to a client browser. See PO Resp. 17; Tr. 73:10–23. Scoda discloses that “[t]he core module 21 is executed by the web content proxy server 12 to determine where to provide the response with the executed JavaScript functionality in the exemplary environment 10, such as to a web browser on one of the client devices 14(1)–14(n).” Ex. 1016 ¶ 55. But this functionality does not refer to a web page from a server. Instead, this discussion is about a HTTP request that comes from a client device and may include one or more hidden JavaScript identifiers. See id. ¶¶ 50–55. The discussion about providing a response to a web browser on a client device refers to a response to the client device’s HTTP request, in the form of an error message, that is sent from the proxy server to client device. Id. ¶ 58. As Patent Owner points out, this is one of the two scenarios presented in Scoda, the other one being that HTTP request is sent to the server. Id.; PO Resp. 36; see also Ex. 2009 ¶ 70. We agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Almeroth that these communications between the client and proxy server or the proxy server and the content server do not disclose the “intercepting” limitation.” slip op. at 19
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“deficient, Petitioner attempts to change the focus of its argument. Pet. Reply 2–3. Petitioner instead relies on Figure 8 and related discussion as “Scoda’s disclosure of proxy server 12 processing a web page that was sent from a web server.” Id. Scoda, and Petitioner’s argument based on this disclosure is, therefore, an untimely new argument presented in the Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,516,091 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,516,091 - Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2022-00734 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 25, 26, and 34 unpatentable as obvious over Heller and Quam, and over Heller, Quam, and Deaton.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“After our Final Written Decision (Paper 41) found no challenged claims unpatentable, the Director vacated our Decision and remanded the case back to the Board. Paper 43. With our authorization, Petitioner and Patent Owner filed Briefs on Remand. Paper 45 (“Pet. Remand Br.”), Paper 48 (“PO Remand Br.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final Written Decision issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons we discuss below, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the ’737 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in an academic area emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience related to computerized image analysis and three-dimensional modeling.” Pet. 4–5. 1 Because the parties agree that the challenged claims of the challenged patent have an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, we apply the pre- AIA (“America Invents Act”) version of § 103. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011). 2 Heller, “The Site-Model Construction Component of the RADIUS Testbed System,” in Proceedings: ARPA Image Understanding Workshop (1997) (Ex. 1004, “Heller”). 3 Quam, “The Radius Common Development Environment,” in RADIUS: Image Understanding for Imagery Intelligence (1997) (Ex. 1005, “Quam”). 4 U.S. 2006/0235611 A1, Pub. Oct. 19, 2006 (Ex. 1006, “Deaton”). Further, “education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Id. at 5. Patent Owner does not provide a formulation for a person of ordinary skill. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that “this limitation should be interpreted broadly enough to encompass transmitting roof measurement information between components of the same computer system,” Pet. 11, whereas Patent Owner contends this limitation requires “transmitting the roof measurement information outside the roof estimate report system . . . such as to third-party systems.” PO Resp. 18. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s construction. As we explained in IPR2016-00592, “[t]he claim term at issue requires only ‘transmit[ting]’ roof measurement information—it does not specify any particular source or destination for the transmission.” Ex. 1010, 20. In addition, the ’737 patent’s specification states that “the roof [report] generation engine 813 may transmit roof measurement information” and “some portion of the contents . . . of the [Roof Estimation System] 810,” which includes roof report generation engine 813, “may be stored on and/or transmitted over the other computer readable media 805.” Ex. 1001, 17:16–17, 16:13–17 (emphasis added), Fig. 8. Thus, because the ’737 patent’s specification expressly recognizes transmitting roof-estimate content between components of the same computer system, we maintain our construction from IPR2016-00592— that “transmission” includes transmission within the same system. See Ex. 1010, 20.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“The at-issue language appears in preambles, which as a general rule are not limiting unless they are “necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to the claim.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because claims 16 and 26 describe structurally complete inventions without their preambles, we find the preambles not limiting. In addition, even if the preambles were limiting, the Petition’s analysis, along with Dr. Forsyth’s supporting declaration, plainly indicate that the Heller-Quam RADIUS system includes these generic computing features because RADIUS is a software platform executed by a processor on a computer that utilizes memory. See, e.g., Pet. 20 (explaining that RADIUS is a “workstation-based image processing system,” that “runs on both SunMicrosystems and Silicon Graphics RISC-based workstations,” “utilizes ‘memory,’” and “comprises over 200,000 lines [of code]”); see also Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 36, 38–40. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the Heller-Quam system teaches the preambles in claims 16 and 26.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 9,135,737 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,135,737 - Datavant, Inc. v. Vigilytics LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00381 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petition challenges after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “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) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 in the ’012 patent on all challenges included in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the field of computer science, focusing on data privacy, computer networking, and/or data records management.” Pet. 8. Petitioner also asserts that “[s]uperior education could compensate for less work experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Clark’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 23. Based on the current record and for purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’012 patent as well as the asserted references.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor 4 For Exhibit 1010 (Plaintiffs’ Opening Claim Construction Brief), we cite to the page numbers of the brief rather than the header page numbers. Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Based on the current record, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Alleged Reason to Combine the Teachings of the References Petitioner identifies a reason that would have prompted an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine Murphy’s teachings with Evenhaim’s teachings in the way Petitioner proposes, i.e., to provide “additional details about how to beneficially implement statistical de-identification.” See Pet. 15–16. Further, Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a “reasonable expectation of success” in combining the teachings of the references. Id. at 16. Dr. Clark’s testimony supports Petitioner’s positions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–70. For instance, Dr. Clark testifies that Murphy describes “measures [that] would prevent a search for a single subject in Evenhaim to result in the identification of the subject’s medical records” and, therefore, “reduc[e] the risk of a HIPAA violation.” Id. ¶ 68. According to Dr. Clark, Murphy does so by recommending: (1) “at least a minimum amount of de-identified medical data (i.e., multiple patient records) such that the query complies with the HIPAA statistical requirements”; and (2) “maintaining a log of queries to ensure that a user does not repeatedly submit a query that returns the same number of results multiple times within a defined time period.” Id. Based on the current record, Petitioner establishes sufficiently that an” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,886,012
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.