• Jeisys Medical Inc. v. Serendia, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00386 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–29, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 are unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied

    “D. Analysis The Director’s recent Videndum decision provides that where no “significant relationship [exists] under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” See Videndum, Paper 12 at 6. Moreover, the Director’s decision in Ford clarified that “court-ordered” coordination alone between parties having different accused products does not establish a significant relationship absent “other relevant or extenuating facts or circumstances” that might evidence a significant relationship, such as “interactions or agreements regarding the implementation of the accused [technology] into their respective accused products.” Ford, Paper 28 at 10–11. We do not find a significant relationship exists between the prior and current petitioners so as to warrant discretionary denial under General Plastic. First, like the parties in Ford, the prior and current petitioners are competitors selling different products, and there is no evidence of agreements regarding the implementation of the claimed technology into their respective accused products. See Ford, Paper 28 at 10; cf. Valve, Paper 11 at 10 (“Valve represented that ‘HTC’s VIVE devices incorporate certain Valve technologies under a technology license from Valve,’ and that ‘Valve employees did provide HTC with technical assistance during the development of the accused VIVE devices.’”). Second, and also like in Ford, the “Ground Rules” for the ITC Investigation required that “[p]arties with similar interests should coordinate and consolidate motion practice to the extent practicable” (Ex. 1041 § 2) and “must coordinate and consolidate depositions and all other discovery” (id. § 3.1). Indeed, we understand that all fourteen co-respondents in the ITC Investigation submitted the joint expert report of Dr. Jean Woloszko. See Ex. 2004, 1; see also Ford, Paper 28 at 3. Third, we do not find the current Petitioner’s mere knowledge of litigation—either in the ITC or district court—against competitors in RF microneedling to establish a significant relationship with those competitors. Cf. Ford, Paper 17 at 3 (noting that where the patent at issue had been asserted against multiple competitors regarding their respective accused products, “merely engag[ing] in court-ordered pretrial coordination” is by itself insufficient to establish a “significant relationship” between the parties). Fourth, we do not find the current Petitioner to have engaged in improper gamesmanship through “tactical delay.” As Petitioner explains, the Prior Petition was filed in response to a district court action filed by Patent Owner against the prior petitioners, but not Petitioner, while the current Petition was filed in response to an ITC Investigation initiated after the denial of the Prior Petition. Patent Owner’s remaining arguments are directed to other factors in the General Plastic analysis and do not evidence a significant relationship between the prior and current Petitioners. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under General Plastic.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims of the ’836 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–29 of the ’836 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “IV. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSITA”) would have had (1) 7–10 years of experience with developing and/or using treatment systems for delivery of electromagnetic radiation energy to skin or other tissues, and (2) a related graduate engineering degree or M.D. and may have worked as part of a multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but also would have taken advantage of certain specialized skills of others on the team when solving a technical problem. Ex. 1028, 14–15; see also Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, 15; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50, 51); see also Prelim. Resp. 29. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the parties’ assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is consistent with the prior art of record and the ’836 patent.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner expressly construe any term. See Pet. 9; see also Prelim. Resp. 30. For purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not formally construe any claim term. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,836
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00319 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 15, and 25 were not shown unpatentable because Barsoum supports their priority date, and neither Barsoum nor ATSC327 qualifies as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why claim 5 requires this type of optimization, or why this would be required in order for Barsoum to provide written description support for the claim. Claim 5 does not expressly require optimization of phase considerations and Petitioner does not argue for a claim construction that would include such a requirement.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “(3) Conclusion – Written Description In view of the above, we find that either disclosure in Barsoum identified by Patent Owner satisfies the written description requirement. 2. 35 U.S.C. § 103 As noted previously, Petitioner argues that dependent claims 5, 15, and 25 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327. Pet. 67–79. Having determined the Barsoum provides written description support for claims 5, 15, and 25, Barsoum cannot be prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as asserted by Petitioner. Pet. 2; 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (requiring that “the claimed invention was patented . . . before the effective filing date of the claimed invention). Furthermore, having determined that the ’700 patent is entitled to an effective filing date of Barsoum ’777, which is June 5, 2008, the asserted March 2019 date of ATSC327 does not qualify it as prior art to the ’700 patent. Thus, the Petition does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5, 15, and 25 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327.” slip op. at 22

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “1 Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23, though challenged by Petitioner, were disclaimed by Patent Owner after trial was instituted. Ex. 2024. 2 The Petitioner Sur-reply was authorized in view of our authorization for Patent Owner to file declarant testimony with the Patent Owner Sur-reply.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’700 patent and prior art of record. We also find that Dr. Caire’s statement of a “Ph.D.,” “and possibly some years of work after Ph.D.” is consistent with Petitioner’s statement that the level of skill includes “[s]uperior education” to “compensate for a deficiency in work experience.” The complexity of the evidence of record emphasizes the importance of “at least two years of experience . . . including the use of constellations in transmitting signals between devices” or “[s]uperior education” in the same area. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill as discussed above.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 10,693,700 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,693,700
• Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. v. P2i Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00380 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “because they are premised on a misapplication of our precedent. Providing a document to the Office in an Information Disclosure Statement is sufficient to satisfy AB prong one as long as that “previously presented” art is “the same or substantially the same” as that presented in the Petition. See Advanced Bionics, 7–8 (holding that “[p]reviously presented art includes . . . art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent”). As we have already found, there are no material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination under BD factor (a). Petitioner provides no authority that requires us to interpret “involved during examination” under BD factor (a) as “used in a rejection” or “mentioned by the examiner” (Pet. 60), and we are aware of none. Patent Owner’s position, in that regard, appears to conflate the first AB prong (whether the art previously was presented to the Office) with an aspect of the second AB prong (the extent to which the Examiner considered that art).” slip op. at 11

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

    “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). The findings and conclusions set forth in this Decision are provided for the exclusive purpose of explaining our determination that Petitioner has met that standard on this record. slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–29). Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp., generally. On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). A more specific definition is not necessary for purposes of deciding whether to institute review. To the extent a more specific definition is required, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed unchallenged definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner asserts that the claimed term “aryl” should be construed to mean “an aromatic ring system.” See Pet. 20–23. Patent Owner does not propose a different claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp., generally. After review of the preliminary record, we determine that no claim terms need to be construed for purposes of institution. See 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.’”).” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,041,087
• Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Multimodal Media LLCInstituted
  PTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00063 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Prikowitsch or Sar-Shalom.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “16–23; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (holding that PTAB has discretion to deny institution in certain circumstances where there are parallel district court proceedings). Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue as to the challenged claims any ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR” (Ex. 1055, 2), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv. As to Patent Owner’s allegation that Petitioner should not be able to file a stipulation after the Preliminary Response (Prelim. Resp. 22–23), we determine that Petitioner’s filing of its Sotera stipulation at the time it did is proper. NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc., IPR2021-01556, Paper 13 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2022) (precedential) (holding the Board may only consider stipulations offered before a decision on institution).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Having reviewed the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ’227 patent is unpatentable over Prikowitsch.” slip op. at 14

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

    “In summary, we determine that adoption of either party’s proposed construction does not provide a meaningful difference at this time; both appear to cover the same idea. Indeed, given that the claims already state that the call completion application detects an incomplete call, receives a call completion action, and triggers execution of the call completion action, we see no reason to construe “call completion application” to require anything beyond what is already in the claims. On this record, we see no support in the claims or specification to hold that a “call completion application” can be read as operating without reliance on a network in some way.2 Instead, after the call completion application becomes aware of an incomplete call, the application receives a choice from a user and triggers execution of that choice, and in accordance with the ’227 patent 2 To the extent Patent Owner’s proposed construction is seeking to preclude a network in the performance of the call completion application, then we would not agree with that construction. The call completion application is always dependent on the infrastructure of a communication network; as should be clear from our analysis above, the ’227 patent is focused on independence from the call completion services provided by the called party’s network. Notwithstanding the choice of call completion action being independent of the call completion services provided by the called party’s network, the call completion action still must rely on the network to provide the infrastructure to carry out certain actions. specification, it is that choice that is not premised on a limitation imposed by the called party’s network. Ex. 1001, 1:54–62 (“a system that complete[s] an incomplete call . . . independent of a preconfigured call completion service on the called party’s network”) (emphasis added), 2:39–43 (“the system . . . enables transmission of a voice message by a calling party to a called party when a network component or a called party device is not configured to offer a call completion option to the calling party to leave a voice message”). We do not explicitly provide a claim construction of any claim limitation in this Decision at this time because the issue of whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood can be resolved without explicitly construing the claim. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). However, our analysis places the parties on notice of the potential scope of the claims.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art: would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and two-three years of experience with multimedia and Internet-related communications technologies, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 7. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill at this time. Prelim. Resp. 4. We adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision, which appears consistent with the level of disclosure provided in the ’227 patent and the prior art cited.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,185,227
• Askeladden L.L.C. v. Liberty Peak Ventures LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00422 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–5, and 7–16 as anticipated by Foss; claims 2, 6, and 17–20 as obvious over Foss and Hirka.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–161). Patent Owner does not submit a contrary skill definition. See PO Resp. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s skill definition is not “well-grounded in the facts,” but this assertion is conclusory and unpersuasive. See id. at 11. We discuss this assertion again below in the context of Patent Owner’s merits arguments. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is generally consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’301 patent and prior art of record. We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of experience indefinitely with no upper bound. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill with the exception of the language “at least.”” slip op. at 7

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

    “possession when the same dictionary proposes other definitions, such as “[a]ssociated with.” See PO Resp. 6–7. Nor does Patent Owner point to any disclosure in the ’301 patent specification that supports its more restrictive construction. When discussing “account information” in connection with an “account,” the specification merely describes “account information for the account.” Ex. 1002, 1:54–55, 10:49–50 (emphasis added). The phrase “account information of the separate account” does not occur in the specification, and neither party addresses any relevant prosecution history. There is no basis in the intrinsic record, then, for reading a restrictive interpretation of this phrase. Patent Owner overlooks that where the specification does not use a term restrictively, “the broader dictionary definition . . . is preferable.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d, 1303, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[J]udges are free to . . . rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” (internal quotation omitted)). As noted above, the parties point to no intrinsic evidence, whether in the specification or prosecution history, that informs the meaning of the term “of.” And the definition “associated with” in Patent Owner’s proffered dictionary is a broader definition than the definition “possessing.” See Ex. 2001, 2. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “account information of the separate account” in claims 1 and 7 at least encompasses “account information associated with the separate account.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner that this limitation is not inherently disclosed by Foss based on the possibility of Foss’s system sending debit account information instead of overdraft account information. That is because “account information of the separate account” encompasses “account information associated with the separate account,” under the correct claim construction. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 387 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 17). As noted above, Mr. Zatkovich testifies that “the account information request would necessarily include account information associated with the overdraft account.” Id. ¶ 386 (emphasis changed). Foss’s linkage between debit and overdraft accounts means that Foss’s debit account information would necessarily be information associated with the overdraft account. See id. ¶ 387; Ex. 1008 ¶ 17. Thus, under the proper construction of the word “of,” Patent Owner’s assertion that Foss’s system could have sent a debit card number, rather than an overdraft account number, effectively proves Petitioner’s inherency argument. In other words, Foss’s system necessarily must have sent either debit account information or overdraft account information as part of its authorization request. Otherwise, Foss’s system would not have been able to determine which overdraft account to authorize. Foss therefore inherently teaches “sending, using the computer-based authorization system, an account information request that includes account information of the separate account.”” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner contends that dependent claims 2, 6, and 17–20 would have been obvious over the combination of Foss and Hirka. Pet. 68–84. Petitioner provides a detailed analysis explaining where the combination of Foss and Hirka discloses the limitations in claims 2, 6, and 17–20 and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Foss and Hirka. Patent Owner does not dispute these assertions except to raise the same argument it made for claim 1. PO Resp. 18–19. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence and find them persuasive. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, and 17–20 would have been obvious over the combination of Foss and Hirka.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,905,301 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,905,301
• Askeladden L.L.C. v. Liberty Peak Ventures LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00421 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Gopinathan and Hirka; the Board did not reach anticipation over Gopinathan.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on these and other disclosures in Hirka, Mr. Zatkovich testifies, and we agree, that Hirka discloses the debit card aspect of the authentication limitation. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 170, 188–189.7 For example, Mr. Zatkovich states that Hirka “demonstrate[s] that a debit card used in the transaction . . . is associated with both a demand deposit account (e.g., a ‘cash account’) and an overdraft account.” Id. ¶ 188. Mr. Zatkovich’s opinions are well-supported by record evidence, including the citations to Hirka we discuss above. Patent Owner does not address these disclosures in Hirka and does not rebut Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony with expert testimony of its own. See PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner’s assertion that “the combination suggests only authenticating a transaction against an available credit limit” entirely overlooks Hirka’s disclosure regarding debit cards and demand deposit 6 No line numbers are provided on Hirka’s first page. 7 Mr. Zatkovich also relies on the teachings of Hirka ’404 (Ex. 1007), which was cited by the Examiner during prosecution. E.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 170, 188. Although Hirka ’404 further supports Mr. Zatkovich’s findings, we view Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony sufficiently supported by the combined teachings of Gopinathan and Hirka. accounts. See id. at 16. Patent Owner’s argument therefore fails to undermine Petitioner’s persuasive arguments and supporting evidence.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “a POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, data science, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with payment processing systems, credit card and debit card payment transactions, and industry practices and standards for processing purchase transactions and authenticating participants. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–161). Patent Owner does not submit a contrary skill definition. See PO Resp. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is generally consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’100 patent and prior art of record. We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of experience indefinitely with no upper bound. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill with the exception of the language “at least.”” slip op. at 6

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

    “Patent Owner proposes constructions for the “authenticating” step of claim 1 as well as for the terms “demand deposit account” and “overdraft account.” PO Resp. 6–7. Petitioner does not dispute these constructions, and Patent Owner does not appear to rely on them in its arguments. See Reply; PO Resp. Accordingly, we determine that no claim terms require construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 6

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

    “We agree with Petitioner, as supported by the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gopinathan and Hirka at least “because doing so would have protected cardholders and card issuing systems from fraud associated with debit cards with overdraft protection.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 191). In other words, in the combination, Hirka’s debit cards with overdraft protection would benefit from Gopinathan’s fraud protection disclosure. See id. And conversely, Gopinathan’s system would benefit from Hirka’s overdraft protection. See id. Patent Owner does not squarely address Petitioner’s rationales to combine. In asserting that “the teachings of Hirka add nothing to the teachings already present in Gopinathan,” Patent Owner overlooks that Hirka would provide the benefit of overdraft protection to Gopinathan’s fraud detection system. See PO Resp. 15; Reply 17 (arguing that “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Gopinathan with Hirka to protect cardholders from fraud ‘associated with debit cards’ and ‘overdraft protection’”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 191. We further agree with Petitioner that Hirka would have provided the benefit of debit cards to Gopinathan’s fraud detection system. Reply 19 (“[I]t would have been obvious (and a POSITA would have been motivated to) to modify Gopinathan with the ‘debit card’ system as taught in Hirka in order to expand the reach and applicability of the fraud detection system taught.” (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 654–662)). And vice versa, Gopinathan would have provided the benefit of fraud protection to Hirka’s debit card and overdraft accounts. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 171); Pet. 24.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,837,100 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,837,100
• Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationInstituted
  PTAB · May 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00105 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–13 and 16 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Fells.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “According to our precedent, “if the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under [Becton, Dickinson] factors (e) and (f).” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10; see also Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-01421, Paper 14 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2023) (vacating a Board decision denying institution where the examiner considered references but never provided any discussion, analysis, or other findings, and the petition provided a sufficient argument on the merits, which the examiner misapprehended or overlooked). Here, in evaluating Becton, Dickinson factor (c), we determine that the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to Fells and Cook is not well developed and neither reference was the basis for a rejection. We also determine, for reasons we discuss more fully below, that InductEV has shown that the Examiner materially erred by overlooking at least the teachings of Fell as applied to claim 1 (Becton, Dickinson factor (e)), and that the Petition presents additional evidence and facts, including testimony by Dr. Allen, that warrant reconsideration of Fells (Becton, Dickinson factor (f)). See infra Section IV.C. Thus, we decline to deny institution discretionarily under § 325(d).” slip op. at 8

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

    “9. Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that InductEV has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Fells discloses or teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features described in Fells in the manner recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that InductEV is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Fells.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted

    “9. Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that InductEV has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Fells discloses or teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features described in Fells in the manner recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that InductEV is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Fells.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–63); Prelim. Resp. 5–6. We agree that, for this decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We discuss the claim terms below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,027,184
• Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationInstituted
  PTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00140 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4–10, 12–16, 18, and 19 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we may institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Applying that standard, we institute an inter partes review of all the challenged claims of the ’654 patent for the reasons explained below. This is a preliminary decision, and we will base our final written decision on the full trial record.” slip op. at 2

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

    “First, although InductEV disagrees that the word antenna would exclude coils found within a transformer-like structure, InductEV does not appear to dispute WiTricity’s proposed IEEE definition of antenna as “a device that radiates and/or receives radio waves.” See Prelim. Reply 2–3. We preliminary adopt that construction. But we agree with InductEV that nothing in this construction would exclude a coil found within a transformerlike structure, so long as it either transmits or receives radio waves. We also note that, although WiTricity relies on the generation of near-field flux lines into free space as a way to distinguish an antenna from a transformer, WiTricity does not point to any testimonial or other evidence that a transformer coil does not generate near-field flux lines into free space. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 8–16; Ex. 2001, 20–37. Second, we agree with InductEV that the preliminary evidence does not suggest (and WiTricity does not explicitly argue) that the terms transmitting antenna or receiving antenna depart from the ordinary and customary meanings of those terms. Pet. 2. The ’654 patent does refer to a “coupling-mode region” consisting of the area around antennas 114 and 118 of Figure 1 in which “near-field coupling may occur.” Ex. 1001, 2:38–40; see supra Section II.A. But this is the region in which “efficient energy transfer occurs by coupling a large portion of the energy in the near-field of the transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna rather than propagating most of the energy in an electromagnetic wave to the far field”—not a defining characteristic of either the transmitting or receiving antenna. See Ex. 1001, 2:31–38. Thus, for this decision, we preliminarily adopt InductEV’s proposed construction of transmitting antenna as “an antenna that transmits energy” and the proposed construction of receiving antenna as “an antenna that receives energy.” Prelim. Reply 1. This appears to be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms and their usage in the ’654 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:26–40. As this is a preliminary construction solely for this decision, the parties may continue to offer evidence and arguments as to these or other claim terms at trial. We do not need to construe any of the other terms explicitly for this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Alternatively, if WiTricity is correct that alignment based on the degree of coupling is not explicitly applicable to the “parked” embodiment, the preliminary evidence suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute such alignment for alignment based on the output of the sensors that Ross discloses, such as optical sensors, and that this would have predictably led to aligning the two coils regardless of whether the vehicle is parked temporarily on a roadway or parked in a loading/unloading zone. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 246–248 (opining that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that one may obtain the “optimum lateral position” of the vehicle coil by sensing the degree of coupling “[i]nstead of” using sensors (quoting Ex. 1007, 13:21))); KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”); Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[I]f there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.” (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021))). We also find persuasive, on the present record, InductEV’s argument that claim 13 does not require control based on the degree of inductive coupling while the receiving antenna is being guided into the recited “first alignment position.” See Prelim. Reply 5. Whereas limitation 13[b] requires such control after the receiving antenna is already in the “first alignment position” (e.g., during fine alignment while Ross’s vehicle is parked in the loading/unloading zone), there is no such requirement in limitation 13[a] while the receiving antenna is being moved to the “first alignment position” (e.g., while Ross’s vehicle leaves the electrified roadway and parks in the loading/unloading zone).” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,466,654
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27–29, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art and skilled-artisan knowledge.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Our analysis begins with the claim language. The term “adhesion layer” appears in each of the ’806 patent’s independent claims, which include both method and device claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 13:44–63 (claim 1 directed to a “semiconductor device”); id. at 17:58–18:17 (claim 30 directed to a “method of manufacturing a semiconductor device”). Claim 1 recites “a first semiconductor chip having a first adhesion layer adhered to its back surface” and “a second semiconductor chip having a second adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 13:49–51, 13:54–56 (emphasis added). Claim 30 recites the steps of “forming a first insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a first wafer” and “forming a second insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a second wafer.” Id. at 17:60–62, 18:3–5 (emphases added). In the absence of contrary evidence, we must assume that the term “adhesion layer” has the same meaning in all claims of the ’806 patent. In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, overcome only if ‘it is clear’ that the same phrase has different meanings in different claims,” quoting Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The language of claim 30 and similarly worded claims of the ’806 patent suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer and need not be pre-formed, as argued by Patent Owner. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of claims 30 and 31 does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a pre-formed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 22–25 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Citing testimony from Dr. Suhling, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date of the ’806 patent would have had i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, material science, or a related subject and five or more years of experience working in the field of semiconductor packaging; ii) a Master’s-level degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science, or a related field, and at least 1-3 years of experience in the design/development of semiconductor packages; or iii) a Ph.D.- level degree in mechanical engineering, material science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in the area of semiconductor packaging. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–32). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2014 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences” slip op. at 14

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

    “3. Reasons to Combine Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ball’s teachings of stacking chips with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–29. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ball and Mostafazadeh for several reasons, including to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify the stacking process. Pet. 28–31. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Mostafazadeh with Ball because there would have been no reasonable expectation of success and the combination would not have resulted in a functioning semiconductor device. PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s combination of Ball and Mostafazadeh would fail for multiple reasons and that Mostafazadeh does not describe multi-chip stacked mounting. Id. at 39–52. Having considered the evidence and arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive at the wafer stage and then dicing to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–31. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s combination. Ball teaches a stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond interconnections, where a lower chip is flip-chip connected to a substrate using metal bumps, and an upper chip is wire bond connected to the substrate. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:42–64, 4:58–59, 5:3–12, 5:18–20, 5:23– 27, Fig. 1. Ball teaches that the upper chip is attached to the lower chip in a back-to-back arrangement with a layer of adhesive applied over a back side of the lower chip. Id. Mostafazadeh teaches a method for applying integrated circuit dies to support surfaces. Ex. 1003, Abstract. In Mostafazadeh’s method, an adhesive coating is formed on a surface of a semiconductor wafer, the adhesive coating is dried, and the semiconductor wafer is diced to form integrated circuit dies, each having an adhesive layer on its mounting surface, i.e., its back surface. Id. at 3:5–11, 5:20–25, 7:9–11, 7:29–8:2, Fig. 2 (steps 104–110). A selected die is then attached to an associated support surface by placing the adhesive layer of the selected die in contact with the associated support surface. Id. at 3:11–13, 8:10–12, Fig. 2 (steps 112–118).” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner meets its burden of proof for claim element [3d]. Our finding is supported by Figure 1 of Ball, which depicts a second chip mounted to a first chip in a back-to-back arrangement. Ex. 1002 ¶ 158; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. More particularly, Ball’s Figure 1 shows that back side 32 of upper die 12 (the claimed “second semiconductor chip”) is mounted to back side 30 of lower die 14 (the claimed “first semiconductor chip”) by adhesion layer 28. Ex. 1005, 5:18–20. Relying on Dr. Suhling’s testimony, Petitioner shows persuasively that “a circuit is formed on the front surface 34 of upper die 12 . . . , as evidenced by bonding pads 36 and wires 38 connecting the upper die’s circuitry to the wiring layer on substrate 16.” Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. We credit Dr. Suhling’s unrebutted testimony that, “[b]ecause the circuitry is on the front side of upper die 12, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would know that the back surface adhesive layer is ‘where a circuit is not formed.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Patent Owner argues that, to meet claim elements [3b] and [3d], “a reference must show that an adhesion layer extends to cover the entire back surface of the second semiconductor chip where a circuit is not formed.” PO Resp. 30. We find no support in the claim language or other intrinsic evidence for Patent Owner’s argument. In our view, the phrase “back surface where a circuit is not formed” identifies the back side of the chip as opposed to the front side, where a circuit is formed. Ex. 1001, 14:26–27 (claim element [3d]). Our interpretation is supported by the claim language as a whole. Claim element [3b], for example, recites “a first semiconductor chip having a circuit forming on its front surface and an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 14:17–19 (emphasis added). In this” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–19, 23–26, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionGranted

    “On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.”” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner shows persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Mostafazadeh with Ball and Fogal. Pet. 32–33. The evidence discussed above concerning reasons to combine supports a reasonable expectation of success. We are also persuaded by Dr. Suhling’s testimony that the “combination of Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh would require no modification of the multichip modules in Ball and Fogal: rather Mostafazadeh merely explains in more detail methods known in the art for creating chips with adhesive surfaces.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 239; see also id. ¶¶ 62– 69 (describing prior art methods for applying adhesive to the backside of a wafer). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh.” slip op. at 46

  • ExcludeOther

    “We do not discuss or cite any of these exhibits in this Decision, or rely on any of them in reaching our determination that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable. Because their presence in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion with respect to these exhibits.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR

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.