- Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01039 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8, 10–18, and 24–47 are unpatentable: Alden anticipates claims 24–27, 29–35, 37–43, and 45–47; the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), effective March 16, 2013, amended the applicable statutes. Because the application from which the ’551 patent issued was filed before this date, the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply. 4 US 2003/0137849 A1, filed Jan. 22, 2002 (Ex. 1005). 5 US 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000 (Ex. 1006). 6 US 2002/0057572 A1, published May 16, 2002 (Ex. 1007). 7 WO 2001/70538 A2, published Sept. 27, 2001 (Ex. 1008). similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art and refer to people with it as skilled artisans.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The problem with Patent Owner’s claim-construction position is that neither the dictionary definition nor the ’551 patent’s specification establish any degree of proof, verification, or confirmation that an object has been correctly identified. The specification discloses that “techniques known in the art” may be used “to classify, identify or locate the contents” visible to a camera sensor. Ex. 1001, 44:67–45:9. That does not establish any certainty obtained by the preexisting techniques. The specification states that the system can “illuminate distant overhead and roadside signs” and can use “[i]mage recognition via a camera” so that the illumination beam may “follow the retroreflective sign as the vehicle moves.” Id. at 51:59–67. That disclosure does not speak to any degree of confirmation or certainty. The specification’s other disclosures are no different. Id. at 52:19–27 (disclosing automated control over lighting and referencing “automatic dimming of high beam due to detection of oncoming vehicles”), 52:66–53:4 (“Using color and pattern recognition techniques it is possible to determine what is a sign.”), 63:9–12 (“Using real time image processing methodologies with image and scene recognition technology known in the art, room or outdoor area elements, objects and people are identified.”), 64:46–49 (“Using machine vision technology known in the art such as neural networks training and other pattern recognition techniques the vision system has sensor, algorithmic and computation means for identifying devices or objects.”), 69:54–57 (“In a preferred embodiment of the invention the logical controller 454 receiving image input from the camera 453 and running pattern recognition software will identify what is the visual task a person is trying to perform.”), 75:48–62 (“Using programmed scene recognition algorithms, the luminaire’s computer vision system comprised of the camera sensor 496 and logical controller 494 identifies the food on the plate, looks-up in storage the recommended CCT and powers each of the different colored LED chips aimed thereon at the correct power level in order to provide the optimal color illumination.”), 76:33–39 (“[A] camera vision system has algorithmic means to identify and track the position of people and objects and the logical controller has motion control means for re-aiming the light sources towards targeted elements and changing the power level to the LED chips.”). None of those disclosures addresses a requirement for confirming or verifying an identification that the system makes; nor does any address a particular accuracy requirement in identifying an object. Based on the specification using “identify” without any requirement that identifying an object requires confirmation or verification of the object’s true identify, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Although the construction itself similarly does not expressly require the confirmation or verification that Patent Owner seeks to impose, we understand that to be Patent Owner’s intent, and accordingly do not adopt the proposed construction. The parties dispute no other aspect of “identify,” and we therefore need not expressly construe the term.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Because Alden describes its segmented headlights as implementing a process using two-dimensional signals for two-dimensional dimming functionality, we find that Figure 5 depicts a section of an embodiment that contains more than a single row of lighting elements. Stated otherwise, Alden’s disclosures are consistent with each other and are directed to a two-dimensional approach to sensing, control, and illumination. Further, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not addressed the legal standard for lack of enablement. Pet. Reply 2. In particular, to overcome the presumption that prior-art disclosures are enabled, Patent Owner must show ordinarily skilled artisans would require undue experimentation to practice the disclosed invention. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F. 3d 1313, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F. 3d 1282, 1287– 88 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We do not agree with Patent Owner that Alden lacks a presumption of enablement (see PO Surreply 7–8), because we determine that Petitioner’s contentions rely on Alden’s disclosures regarding its invention as a whole. Other than arguing that Figure 5 discloses a single-row embodiment that is unusable with Alden’s other disclosures, Patent Owner has made no attempt to show Alden lacks enablement. Patent Owner has not addressed what experimentation skilled artisans would require to practice an invention using Alden’s Figure 5 segmented headlight with the remainder of Alden’s system as disclosed in Figures 2, 3, and 4, and Alden’s corresponding textual description. We therefore determine that Patent Owner has not shown Alden to lack enablement for its disclosed invention.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have had reason to incorporate Kobayashi’s teachings that its controller receives “road map information” from a “road profile calculating means” and uses it to adjust the headlamp’s illumination. Pet. 63–64. Petitioner reasons that it would be obvious to “apply these teachings to Alden to use map data to identify road curvature when adapting the LEDs of Alden to ‘direct light into the corner.’” Id. at 64 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 122). And Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans had reason to do so because it would “maximize successful detection in different environments” such as where the road lack reflectors. Id. at 65 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123). Other than as discussed above regarding Alden’s disclosures, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing for claims 28, 36, and 44. We have considered the full record, including evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner on whether the combination of Alden and Kobayashi discloses each limitation of claims 28, 36, and 44, and whether skilled artisans would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings as asserted. Based on the full record, we conclude that Petitioner has proven that claims 28, 36, and 44 would have been obvious over Alden and Kobayashi. Pet. 62–65.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,955,551 - Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00816 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 9–13, 16, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan because claim 23 showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). 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). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“We determine that the first General Plastic factor does not favor exercising discretion to deny institution of inter partes review. This is Petitioner’s first petition challenging the ’330 patent. Pet. 73. Patent Owner argues that “Apple’s use of prior petitions as a roadmap ‘implicitly create[s] such a relationship’” as set forth in Valve. Prelim. Resp. 54. According to Patent Owner, “Apple’s admitted attempt to improve over issues ‘that have plagued prior invalidity challenges’ ties its interests to the prior Petitioner’s aims.” Id. Under the circumstances in this case, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner has any significant relationship with Lenovo or Samsung—for example, that Petitioner is a co-defendant with either of them or was accused of infringing the ’330 patent based on the same product. See Valve at 9–10. That Petitioner apparently may have reviewed and considered strategies undertaken by prior petitioners on similar issues does not, in and of itself, create a significant relationship with any of the prior petitioners. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“That Behbahani and Tan appeared in an initialed IDS is sufficient to satisfy the first Advanced Bionics prong. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8 (“Previously presented art includes art made of record by the Examiner, and art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent”). Leete was not previously presented to the Office, but we need not decide whether the reference to Leete in Behbahani (see Section II.F.1 below) or Petitioner’s obviousness arguments concerning Behbahani and Leete suffice to satisfy the first Advanced Bionics prong for purposes of this Decision. As discussed below, even if we assume that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied, Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims in the second part of the framework.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. Given that both parties also indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, we do not see a material difference in the proposals, and thus adopt Patent Owner’s version for the purposes of this Decision. If the parties believe that the choice of one proposal over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis, they may address that during trial.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,010,330 - Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00819 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would show at least one claim unpatentable over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). 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).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“We determine that the first General Plastic factor does not favor exercising discretion to deny institution of inter partes review. This is Petitioner’s first petition challenging the ’164 patent. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner has any significant relationship with Lenovo or Samsung—for example, that Petitioner is a co-defendant with either of them or was accused of infringing the ’164 patent or any related patents dbased on the same product. See Valve at 9–10. That Petitioner apparently may have reviewed and considered strategies undertaken by prior petitioners on similar issues does not, in and of itself, create a significant relationship with any of the prior petitioners. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“an inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The Board uses a two-part framework when determining whether to exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if so, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”).” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedOther
“of the alleged invention would have had “a master’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with wireless communication devices.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–29). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Id. Relying on Dr. Larson, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill “would have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical or Electronics Engineering, along with ‘approximately five years of relevant experience in the design of transceiver architecture, RF systems and components, and analog and mixed signal circuits, as well as experience in control algorithms for such systems and familiarity with wireless standards.” Prelim. Resp. 27– 28 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 50). Patent Owner further states that “[a]dditional education could substitute for experience and vice versa.” Id.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,564,164 - Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00818 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 4–23, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 7 is unpatentable over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan under § 103(a).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the present record, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing as to this limitation for purposes of institution.11 Petitioner has sufficiently shown, and Patent Owner does not appear to dispute, that Behbahani switches from its high-power filter to its low-power filter in response to signal strength measurements, and that this “filter swap” varies the impedance and/or bias current in the receiver. The only disputed issues appear to be: (1) whether the claim language excludes Behbahani’s filter” slip op. at 40
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“We determine that the first General Plastic factor does not favor exercising discretion to deny institution of inter partes review. This is Petitioner’s first petition challenging the ’202 patent. Pet. 75. Patent Owner argues that “Apple’s use of prior petitions as a roadmap ‘implicitly create[s] such a relationship’” as set forth in Valve. Prelim. Resp. 55. According to Patent Owner, “Apple’s admitted attempt to improve over issues ‘that have plagued prior invalidity challenges’ ties its interests to the prior Petitioner’s aims.” Id. Under the circumstances in this case, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner has any significant relationship with Lenovo or Samsung—for example, that Petitioner is a co-defendant with either of them or was accused of infringing the ’202 patent based on the same product. See Valve at 9–10. That Petitioner apparently may have reviewed and considered strategies undertaken by prior petitioners on similar issues does not, in and of itself, create a significant relationship with any of the prior petitioners. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We find that Becton, Dickinson factor (c)––the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination––does not favor denying the Petition under Section 325(d) because the Examiner did not cite Behbahani or Tan in any rejection and did not specifically address either reference in any correspondence, other than initialing them in an IDS. Nor did the Examiner address Leete. For factors (e) and (f), we find that Petitioner has explained sufficiently how the Examiner allegedly erred in evaluating Behbahani and Tan, by pointing to the Proposed Grounds, which detail how the challenged claims read on these references over the combination of Behbahani, Leete, and Tan. See Pet. 18–72. We find this sufficient to identify the “specific teachings” that were overlooked, as contemplated in Advanced Bionics, and we agree with Petitioner that the facts and discussion of Behbahani, Leete, and Tan presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the challenged claims in view of those references. We thus find that Petitioner has satisfied the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework by demonstrating that the Examiner may have erred by not appreciating that Behbahani, Leete, and Tan teach or suggest the features of the claimed invention. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on the parties’ application of the prior art to the claims, it appears that there may be some disagreement concerning the meaning of “signal path” in this proceeding; however, neither party proposes an express construction of the term for this case. See Pet. 8–10; Prelim. Resp. 28–32. We will discuss the term “signal path” below in the context of the parties’ arguments applying this language to the asserted prior art. See § III.F.4.c, infra. The parties may further address the meaning of the term “signal path” during the trial.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,524,202 - Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00817 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a master’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with wireless communications devices” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–41). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical or Electronics Engineering, along with ‘approximately five years of relevant experience in the design of transceiver architecture, RF systems and components, and analog and mixed signal circuits, as well as experience in control algorithms for such system and familiarity with wireless standards’” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for experience and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 28 (Ex. 2005 ¶ 50). Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. Given that both parties also indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, we do not see a material difference in the proposals, and thus adopt Patent Owner’s version for the purposes of this Decision. If the parties believe that the choice of one proposal over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis, they may address that during trial.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“Based on the parties’ application of the prior art to the claims, it appears that there may be some disagreement concerning the meaning of “signal path” in this proceeding; however, neither party proposes an express construction of the term in this proceeding. See Pet. 8–10; PO Resp. 29–32. We will discuss the term “signal path” below in the context of the parties’ arguments applying this language to the asserted prior art. See § III.F.4.f, infra. The parties may further address the meaning of the term “signal path” during the trial. Patent Owner also argues that we should dismiss the Petition because Petitioner is relying on a construction that it disagreed with in the related district court litigation, citing the Board’s non-precedential decisions in Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Cobblestone Wireless LLC, IPR2024-00319, Paper 16 at 13–23 (PTAB Jun. 24, 2024) and Hologic, Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., IPR2018-00019, Paper 21 at 5–7 (PTAB Nov. 28, 2018). Prelim. Resp. 30–32. Patent Owner, however, relies on a flawed understanding of the Samsung case. In Samsung, the Board determined that Petitioner had failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success because it offered and relied on a claim construction that it failed to support, disagreed with, and disparaged, and that this claim construction was not agreed upon by the patent owner or adopted by a district court. Samsung, Paper 21 at 13–23. Specifically, as the Board pointed out in Samsung, the petitioner argued and submitted testimony from its expert that its proffered construction was “expressly excluded” by the specification of the challenged patent and was “contrary to [the term’s] plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 14–15, 19–20. In reaching its decision in Samsung, the Board expressly “distinguish[ed] this case from situations where a petitioner relies on the ordinary meaning of a claim term, offers alternative constructions of a claim term, or relies on a construction agreed upon by the parties in the proceeding at issue.” Id. at 21. Here, unlike in Samsung, Petitioner relies on the plain and ordinary meaning of the dynamic limitation, which is agreed to by the parties in this proceeding and has been adopted by district courts in parallel litigation. We similarly find the facts in Hologic distinguishable from those presented here. See Hologic at 4 (stating, for example, that “[n]early every time [p]etitioner discusses its use in the [p]etition of [p]atent [o]wner’s proposed construction, [p]etitioner affirmatively disagrees with the construction it adopts.”). Therefore, we reject Patent Owner’s argument that Samsung and Hologic support dismissal of the Petition here. Other than the terms discussed above, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Director Vidal has instructed the Board that General Plastic factor 1 should not be expanded beyond Valve to apply to parties that do not have a significant relationship. See Videndum Production Solutions, Inc. v. Rotolight Limited, IPR2023-01218, Paper 12 at 6 (Director Vidal, April 19, 2024) (“The majority’s Decision in this proceeding improperly expanded the discretionary principles set forth in General Plastic and Valve to apply to petitioners that are not the same and do not have a ‘significant relationship.’”). Moreover, Director Vidal has instructed that where “the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Id. We determine that the first General Plastic factor does not favor exercising discretion to deny institution of inter partes review. This is Petitioner’s first petition challenging the ’825 patent. Pet. 70. Patent Owner argues that “Apple’s use of prior petitions as a roadmap ‘implicitly create[s] such a relationship’” as set forth in Valve. Prelim. Resp. 55. According to Patent Owner, “Apple’s admitted attempt to improve over issues ‘that have plagued prior invalidity challenges’ ties its interests to the prior Petitioner’s aims.” Id. Under the circumstances in this case, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner has any significant relationship with Lenovo or Samsung—for example, that Petitioner is a co-defendant with either of them or was accused of infringing the ’825 patent based on the same product. See Valve at 9–10. That Petitioner apparently may have reviewed and considered strategies undertaken by prior petitioners on similar issues does not, in and of itself, create a significant relationship with any of the prior petitioners. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We find that Becton, Dickinson factor (c)––the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination––does not favor denying the Petition under Section 325(d) because the Examiner did not cite Behbahani or Tan in any rejection and did not specifically address either reference in any correspondence, other than initialing them in an IDS. Nor did the Examiner address Leete. For factors (e) and (f), we find that Petitioner has explained sufficiently how the Examiner allegedly erred in evaluating Behbahani and Tan, by pointing to the proposed grounds, which detail how the challenged claims read on these references over the combination of Behbahani, Leete, and Tan. See Pet. 18–68. We find this sufficient to identify the “specific teachings” that were overlooked, as contemplated in Advanced Bionics, and we agree with Petitioner that the facts and discussion of Behbahani, Leete, and Tan presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the challenged claims in view of those references. We thus find that Petitioner has satisfied the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework by demonstrating that the Examiner may have erred by not appreciating that Behbahani, Leete, and Tan teach or suggest the features of the claimed invention. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,129,825 - Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00820 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–6, and 8–11 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over Behbahani and Tan.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“To the extent Patent Owner is suggesting that considerations such as those set forth in General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential Section II.B.4.i) support denial of institution, we are unpersuaded because the other proceedings to which Patent Owner refers did not involve the ’210 patent. We thus do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“First, we find that Becton, Dickinson factor (c)––the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination––does not favor denying the petition under Section 325(d) because the Examiner did not cite Behbahani or Tan in any rejection and did not specifically address either reference in any correspondence, other than initialing them in an IDS. For factors (e) and (f), we find that Petitioner has explained sufficiently how the Examiner allegedly erred in evaluating Behbahani and Tan, by pointing to the Proposed Grounds, which detail how the challenged claims read on these references. See Pet. 17–67. We find this sufficient to identify the “specific teachings” that were overlooked, as contemplated in Advanced Bionics, and we agree with Petitioner that the facts and discussion of Behbahani or Tan presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the challenged claims in view of those references. We thus find that Petitioner has satisfied step 2 of the Advanced Bionics framework by demonstrating that the Examiner may have erred by not appreciating that Behbahani and Tan teach or suggest the features of the claimed invention. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Summary for Claim 1 For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s cited evidence and reasoning shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its contentions regarding claim 1.5 5. Remaining Claims At this stage, Patent Owner does not separately challenge Petitioner’s contentions as to claims 2–3, 5–6, and 8–11. Because we have preliminarily determined that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to at least one claim of the ’210 patent, we institute inter partes review on all claims and grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all” slip op. at 34
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“a master’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with wireless communications devices” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–40). Patent Owner contends that “a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical or Electronics Engineering, along with ‘approximately five years of relevant experience in the design of transceiver architecture, RF systems and components, and analog and mixed signal circuits, as well as experience in control algorithms for such system and familiarity with wireless standards’” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for experience and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 50). Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. Given that both parties indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, we do not see a material difference in the proposals, and thus adopt Patent Owner’s version for the purposes of this decision. If the parties believe that the choice of one formulation over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis, they may address that during trial.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,638,210 - PTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · PGR2024-00034 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–19 and all asserted grounds after finding at least one claim more likely than not unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review. See 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute a post-grant review, we must determine that “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We note that the identification of a Ph.D. as an example of “more formal education” creates a vast range of education relative to a bachelor’s degree. Thus, we treat the identification of a Ph.D. just as it is—an example—and not a requirement. In this case, “more formal education” can be satisfied by a level of education less than a Ph.D (but greater than a bachelor’s degree). Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, definition, limited as discussed above, for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“would have understood Unger’s disclosure to “suggest the use of a torsion spring to facilitate attachment and detachment, because torsion springs are designed to impart this functionality.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 118). Petitioner also asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood that there were a limited number of ways to impart the referenced resilient or flexible ‘manipulation,’” and “would have been motivated to look to various known solutions to impart the suggested functionality, including the torsional spring mechanism of Smith that is used in a similar hearing protection device application for a similar purpose as Unger’s mounting arms (to apply a clamping force).” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–121).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,736,855 - PTAB · Nov 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00851 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims 1–7 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of challenged claims 1–7. We thus deny institution of inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) (“At any” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant prior art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112[(f)] applies” and that “the failure to use the word ‘means’ also creates a rebuttable presumption—this time that § 112[(f)] does not apply.”12 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part) (internal citations omitted). Because the “sealing means” limitation includes the word “means,” we start from the rebuttable presumption that § 112(f) applies. Petitioner does not address the applicability of § 112(f) and does not rebut the presumption. We continue the analysis, however, and, for the reasons below, we agree with Patent Owner that § 112(f) applies to the “sealing means” limitation.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“3. “fits behind” In wherein clause (vi), claim 1 recites: “the outwardly pointing outer flange of the first connecting device fits behind the inner flange of the nut unit.” Ex. 1001, 9:4–5 (emphasis added). In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner discusses the term “fits behind” in this claim language. See Prelim. Resp. 41–45. We need not construe explicitly this language or any other claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis. 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 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,851,030 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · PGR2024-00026 · APJ Hyun J Jung · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–7 and all grounds because Petitioner showed it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim lacks written-description support.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage, Petitioner’s arguments, cited portions of the Specification, and supporting testimonial evidence demonstrate that it is more likely than not that claims 1–7 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“patent describes that “angular position transducer 78 is placed on top of swing leg pivot shaft 24” and that “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate and duplicates the angular movements of swing leg 20 about the pivot shaft.” Ex. 1001, 12:15–16, 12:20–22, Figs. 5, 7. The ’723 patent also describes that “[a]ngular position transducer 78 is mounted inside . . . protective can 90 . . . which is bolted to hinge bracket 28 via an upright holding arm 92” and that “trigger pin 94 projects upwardly from the top surface of pivot shaft 24 and cooperates with angular position transducer 78 to generate an angular position signal.” Id. at 12:28–33, Fig. 5. These descriptions expressly convey that angular position transducer 78 is on pivot shaft 24 and mounted inside protective can 90 that is bolted to hinge bracket 28. Id. at 12:15–16, 12:20–22, 12:28–30, Figs. 5, 7; see also Prelim. Resp. 17 (describing the same embodiment shown in Figs. 5 and 7). According to Petitioner, the ’723 patent describes the pivot shaft as part of the hinge bracket, not the modular frame or swing leg. Pet. 109–110 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:42–46, 12:17–22). On the preliminary record, we agree because the cited portions of the Specification describe that a “hinge bracket is interposed between each swing leg and an associated surface of the bolsters and includes a fixed, upright pivot shaft that pivotally engages the swing leg for pivotal movements” and “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate.” Ex. 1001, 7:42–45, 12:20–21. We also agree that “even if one were to find that the hinge bracket is part of either the modular frame or swing leg (contrary to the claims and specification treating these all as separate components), the specification would only provide written description for one of the claimed alternatives.” Pet. 110 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 199).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this preliminary stage, we determine that express claim interpretation is not necessary to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. 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 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We will also not use our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition based on arguments previously presented in IPR2021-00135, because Petitioner relies on a Board determination regarding claim 8 from IPR2021- 00136, not arguments previously made for claim 1 in IPR2021-00135. Pet. 111–115, 119; Prelim. Resp. 8–9; Prelim. Sur-reply 5. Furthermore, we determined the effective filing date of claim 8 of the ’571 patent without deciding, that other challenged claims, such as claim 1, were entitled to their earliest possible effective filing date. See Godberson-Smith, Paper 61 at 11, 12.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,772,723 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · IPR2024-00835 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be unpatentable over CIII and Rio.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Advanced Bionics stated that: If, after review of factors (a), (b), and (d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, then factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments. It informs, therefore, the petitioner’s showing under factors (e) and (f), which focus on the petitioner’s evidence of previous Office error regardless of the context in which the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented. For example, 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 factors (e) and (f). On the other hand, if the alleged error is a disagreement with a specific finding of record by the Office, then ordinarily the petitioner’s required showing of material error must overcome persuasively that specific finding of record. That is, although Becton, Dickinson factor (c) evaluates “the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection,” the focus should be on the record when determining whether the Office erred in evaluating such art or arguments.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d) Petitioner Shows a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing Based on the preliminary record, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge that CIII and Rio teach, suggest, or would have been understood to disclose the limitations of claim 1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“track” that “is configured to rotate . . . relative to the jacking column,” Petitioner proposes modifying CIII in view of Rio “by positioning Rio’s rotary actuator 44 between the jacking column and crawler track, and using that rotary actuator to rotate CIII’s crawler track relative to the entire jacking column, rather than just its outer cylinder.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89) (emphasis added); see also id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 92; Ex. 1006, 5:8–11, 6:2–6). Petitioner argues such a modification would have been a design choice, one of a finite number of alternatives, obvious to try, and a known design that provides maneuverability. Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61–67; Ex. 1006, 5:8–11; Ex. 1007, 5:14–59, Figs. 4–5; Ex. 1008, 7:35– 53, Figs. 7, 20; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 5, 19–20, Fig. 2; Ex. 1011, 4:7–16, Fig. 3; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 41, 44–45). At this stage, Petitioner’s arguments and cited evidence sufficiently support for institution that the modification would have been made so that the proposed combination would have had “a crawler track” that “is configured to rotate . . . relative to the jacking column.” Regarding claim 1’s “slew drive,” as discussed above, Petitioner proposes modifying CIII so that rotary actuator 44, the asserted slew drive, would be between the jacking column and crawler track. See Pet. 29–31. Petitioner also argues that, in the proposed combination, “actuating the rotary actuator causes the crawler track to rotate relative to the entire jacking column.” Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 92). The present record supports Petitioner’s argument that Rio’s worm gear actuator would have been understood to disclose a slew drive with support from the ’318 patent itself, the opinion of its declarant, and deposition testimony of Patent Owner’s expert in related litigation. Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:40–61; Ex. 1002 ¶ 91; Ex. 1006, 4:61–5:3; Ex. 1032, 84:12–86:17). At this stage, the cited evidence sufficiently supports for purposes of institution Petitioner’s argument that the proposed combination would have included the recited “slew drive.”” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“had at least a four-year degree in mechanical engineering or a closely related field and at least two years of experience designing, developing, or operating heavy machinery, including their components and control systems.” Pet. 8– 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–24). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree, and an advanced degree could substitute for experience.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–25). Petitioner states that “[t]he Board adopted this definition of the level of ordinary skill for the related ’749 patent.” Id. (citing Godberson-Smith Const. Co. v. Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc., IPR2020-01698, Paper 80, 21–24 (PTAB Apr. 12, 2022) (Final Written Decision)). For purposes of its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 13 (quoting Pet. 8–9). Based on the preliminary record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Pet. 8–9; Godberson-Smith, Paper 80 at 21–24 (determining level of ordinary skill after considering the parties’ competing proposals and evidence).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,535,318
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.