- DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 22, 2023 · IPR2023-00265 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that DeWaal, alone or with Schugar, renders claims 1, 4–15, 17–19, or 32 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“recited wager. Pet. 35. However, Petitioner does not explain adequately how this wager “coincides with each of the defined number of legs” of DeWaal’s bonus game (which Petitioner maps to the recited multi-outcome wagering event (id. at 23)) as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner refers to the player’s input for each round of bonus game. Id. at 35. As explained above, DeWaal discloses that a player’s selection of a winning outcome for each round of the bonus game is independent of the wager made by the player in the base game. As acknowledged by Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Crevelt, DeWaal’s wager allows “a player [to] qualify for the bonus game,” but “players of the bonus event must also ‘make an input in association with the plurality of outcomes in each round as indicated by block 108’ in FIG. 3.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 141 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 129). Nor has Petitioner explained adequately how DeWaal identifies “players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs” of the bonus game “based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner again refers to the player’s input for each round of the bonus game. Pet. 40. The wager in DeWaal is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Ex. 1004 ¶ 83. That wager does not, however, serve to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 119, 127. That is, it is those choices, not the wager, that determines whether the player advances at each leg. As such, we are not persuaded DeWaal describes “identifying one or more players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As noted above, Petitioner maps DeWaal’s base game wager to the recited wager. Pet. 35. However, Petitioner does not explain adequately how this wager “coincides with each of the defined number of legs” of DeWaal’s bonus game (which Petitioner maps to the recited multi-outcome wagering event (id. at 23)) as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner refers to the player’s input for each round of bonus game. Id. at 35. As explained above, DeWaal discloses that a player’s selection of a winning outcome for each round of the bonus game is independent of the wager made by the player in the base game. As acknowledged by Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Crevelt, DeWaal’s wager allows “a player [to] qualify for the bonus game,” but “players of the bonus event must also ‘make an input in association with the plurality of outcomes in each round as indicated by block 108’ in FIG. 3.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 141 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 129). Nor has Petitioner explained adequately how DeWaal identifies “players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs” of the bonus game “based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner again refers to the player’s input for each round of the bonus game. Pet. 40. The wager in DeWaal is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Ex. 1004 ¶ 83. That wager does not, however, serve to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 119, 127. That is, it is those choices, not the wager, that determines whether the player advances at each leg. As such, we are not persuaded DeWaal describes “identifying one or more players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that DeWaal discloses or teaches a wager as recited in independent claims 1 and 32. Petitioner’s reliance on Schugar to teach a partial buy-out offer does not correct this deficiency. See Pet. 55–58.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Independent claims 1 and 32 include several limitations involving “the wager.” First, the wager is received “in response to input from a player desiring to participate in the multi-outcome wagering event” (“receiving recitation”). Ex. 1001, 33:25–30, 40:7–11. The claims here further recite that the wager must “coincide[] with each of the defined number of legs.” Id. Second, the claims then identify “one or more players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs based on the wager.” Id. at 33:39–42, 40:20–23. Accordingly, we construe claims 1 and 32 to set out a method where the wager (1) enters the player into the event (and, thus, is set before the event) and (2) is of a nature such that it serves as the metric by which the player is evaluated at each leg to determine whether the player remains eligible to win the event.2 Neither party offers a claim construction of this term.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,704,338 - PTAB · Jun 22, 2023 · IPR2023-00266 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 13–16, 20–27, 29, and 30 on all proposed grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Schugar and DeWaal.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“above factors. In evaluating the factors, we take a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We are also guided by the Director’s Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, issued June 21, 2022 (“Guidance Memo”),3 which provides several clarifications concerning the application of the Fintiv factors. One such clarification instructs that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Guidance Memo 3; see also id. at 7–8. Thus, we will not exercise our discretion to deny institution if a petitioner makes a stipulation similar to that provided in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (designated precedential in relevant part). Petitioner states that it “makes a Sotera-style stipulation not to pursue, in the co-pending proceeding district court proceeding, any argument that the Challenged Claims are invalid on any ground that was raised or could 3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_ memo_20220621_.pdf. have been reasonably raised in this IPR, should a Final Written Decision issue here.” Pet. 66.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Thus, under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (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 either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of [the] challenged claims. Id. at 8.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability of each challenged claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Patent Owner’s arguments do not address the rationale for combining the reference teachings as set forth in the Petition. Petitioner does not propose to modify Schugar’s games to incorporate features of DeWaal’s games. Rather, Petitioner proposes to implement “Schugar’s method of conducting a sport wagering event on DeWaal’s system hardware and thin-client configuration.” Pet. 22–23. Schugar’s system is designed for games hosted by a casino, and Schugar contemplates coordination between multiple casinos through the use of shared databases. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 105. Schugar further discloses use of its system in pari-mutuel betting. Id. ¶ 126. Based on the current record, we find persuasive the evidence showing that using a centralized server is the most practical way to conduct such betting arrangements and reduce the risk of cheating. See Pet. 25–26; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 78–79; Ex. 1004 ¶ 88. Although Patent Owner’s declarant testifies, “I don’t view Schugar’s teachings as requiring hardware, such as a central server, that supports a pari-mutuel pool” (Ex. 2001 ¶ 102), we accord little weight to this conclusory assertion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,970,969 - DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00264 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
Institution denied on the merits: Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 24, 28-30, 54-64, and 83 were unpatentable over DeWaal or DeWaal and Schugar.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 24, 28– 30, 54–64, and 83 of the ’716 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field; and at least two years of experience in the wager based gaming industry.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). Petitioner also states that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard” and that the “description is approximate, and a higher level of education or skill may make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art and does not propose its own level of skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We understand that these independent claims are written in a way that reads on some embodiments (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 14:61–15:19, describing an embodiment where the wager involves guessing the outcomes of 6 games and the “legs” are the outcomes of each of the underlying 6 games) but not all embodiments (see, e.g., id. at 23:9–34, describing an embodiment where the “legs” are the outcomes of each reel in a slot machine, and thus there is no evaluation of an initial wager to determine whether the player won at each leg—the wager is akin to an entry fee to play). Accordingly, we construe independent claims 1 and 83 to set out a method where the wager (1) enters the player into the event (and thus, is set before the event) and (2) is of a nature such that it serves as the metric by which the player is evaluated at each leg to determine whether they remain eligible to win the event. We similarly construe independent claim 54 to require a system wherein the controller receives a wager “in response to input from a player desiring to participate in . . . wagering events” (and thus, before the event) and (2) the wager is of a nature such that it serves as the metric by which the player is evaluated at each leg to determine whether they remain eligible to win the event.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s anticipation challenge does not adequately address the “wager” recited in the receiving and identifying limitations. In particular, the wager in DeWaal relied upon by Petitioner is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Pet. § IX.A.1.d; Ex. 1004 ¶ 57. Alternatively, DeWaal discloses that it could require a separate fee to enter the bonus game. Id. ¶ 83. In either case, the putative wager in DeWaal serves to allow entry into the event. Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how either wager serves to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. See Pet. § IX.A.1.f.; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 114–119. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 119, 128; see also Ex. 1007 ¶ 118 (“DeWaal’s identification of players that are eligible to win each round of the bonus event is ‘based on the wager,’ and more specifically based on the player’s input selection of one of the wagered upon potential outcome in each round.”) (emphasis added). That is, the player’s choice, not the relied-upon wager, determines whether the player advances at each leg. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 119 (“If at least one of the players picks (or makes an input associated with) the designated outcome in a first round, that player advances to a second round.”). As such, Petitioner does not sufficiently show that DeWaal describes “identifying one or more winners . . . based on the wager.” Similarly, even if we were to consider the player’s choice in DeWaal’s bonus event, such as whether to risk further play or take the buyout (e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 146), to be a form of wager, that wager would be different from the one required in claim 1. In particular, claim 1 requires the wager to be “in response to the . . . players desiring to participate in the . . . event” as well as to “coincide[] with each of the defined number of legs.” Ex. 1001, 32:27–30. Thus, by the time the player in DeWaal is making choices during the event, they have already expressed a desire to participate in the event, and any such “wager” to continue the event is tied only to that leg, not to “each of the defined number of legs.” In other words, claims 1 and 83 require the wager to be something that is set ahead of time, and to contain information that is used, at each leg, to evaluate whether that player remains eligible. Accordingly, for the reasons above, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently addressed each limitation of claims 1 and 83 and does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge that DeWaal anticipates claims 1 and 83.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,424,716 - PTAB · Jun 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00267 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 7, 15, and 21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Scott.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’822 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s undisputed contentions on the current record that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner states that “[n]o terms of the ’822 Patent require construction beyond their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 10. For purposes of our Decision, which examines claim 1 below, we determine that it is not necessary to construe any particular term.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field; and at least two years of experience in the wager based gaming industry. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Pet. 10 (internal citations removed). Based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,997,822 - PTAB · Jun 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00262 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1 and 10 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by DeWaal.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’341 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.08(a).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalNot reached
“one of a buy-out offer and partial buy-out offer” to the players during the wagering event. During prosecution of the ’341 patent, the examiner applied a prior art rejection upon construing the claim in the disjunctive form. Ex. 1002, 109 (Office Action, Oct. 28, 2014). That is, construing the language in the form of at least one of X and Y to be satisfied upon a showing in the art of either X or Y. The applicant, however, argued that the prior art needed to disclose both (i.e., the conjunctive form). Id. at 86, 88 (Applicant Response, Dec. 18, 2014). The examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection. Id. at 69 (Office Action, Mar. 12, 2015). Petitioner characterizes the applicant’s argument as a “plain and unmistakable statement[] of disavowal during the prosecution” of the disjunctive form (i.e., X or Y), thus limiting the term to the conjunctive form (i.e., X and Y). Pet. 18 (citing Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The prosecution history limits the interpretation of claim terms so as to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.”)). Petitioner asserts, however, that Patent Owner has taken the position in district court that the disjunctive construction should be used. Pet. 19, n.4 (citing Ex. 1049 (Patent Owner’s Initial Infringement Contentions)). Thus, there is at least some indication of the plausibility of both constructions. Patent Owner has not yet entered any arguments in this case. We encourage further briefing on the construction of the “at least one of” term during trial.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,117,341 - DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00261 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–30 were unpatentable over DeWaal alone or with Schugar and Scott.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’439 patent is unpatentable, we do not institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“wager.” First, the wager is received “in response to the . . . players desiring to participate in the multi-outcome wagering event” (“receiving” limitation). The claim here further specifies that the wager must “coincide[] with each of the number of legs.”1 Second, the claim then identifies one or more winners “based on the wager” (“identifying” limitation). The claim here also” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“adequately address the specific “wager” recited in the receiving and identifying limitations. In particular, the wager in DeWaal is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Ex. 1004 ¶ 83. Alternatively, DeWaal discloses that it could require a separate fee to enter the bonus game. Id. In either case, putative wager in DeWaal serves to allow entry into the event. That wager does not, however, serve to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 119, 127. That is, it is those choices, not the wager, that determines whether the player advances at each leg. As such, we are not persuaded DeWaal describes “identifying one or more winners . . . based on the wager.” Similarly, even if we were to consider the player’s choices in DeWaal’s bonus event, such as whether to risk further play or take the buyout (e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 146), to be a form of wager, that wager would be different from the one required in claim 1. In particular, claim 1 requires the wager to be “in response to the . . . players desiring to participate in the . . . event” as well as to “coincide[] with each of the defined number of legs.” Thus, by the time the player in DeWaal is making choices during the event, they have already expressed a desire to participate in the event, and any such “wager” to continue the event is tied only to that leg, not to “each of the defined number of legs.” In other words, claim 1 requires the wager to be something that is set ahead of time, and to contain information that is used, at each leg, to evaluate whether that player remains eligible. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not addressed sufficiently each limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“The other claims and ground addressed in the Petition are deficient for the same reasons. Petitioner’s position regarding independent claim 26 is effectively identical to that of claim 1. Pet. 55 (“DeWaal therefore discloses each limitation of Claim 26 for the reasons discussed above with regard to Claim 1.”). Similarly, Petitioner’s obviousness grounds bring in references for limitations regarding buy-outs and partial buy-outs, not for the wager limitations. See id. at 55–64.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,721,439 - Farmers Edge, Inc. / Farmers Edge (US), Inc. v. Agi Suretrack, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00166 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the Nadison 610, Johnson, and ISO11783 combination rendered them obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, Preliminary Sur-reply, and evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’017 patent would have had: a bachelor’s degree in either electrical, computer, mechanical, or agricultural engineering or a similar degree and have at least 2 years of experience in heavy machinery telematics, and agricultural practice (including modern farming machinery and precision agriculture devices and systems), as well as networking and communications protocols specific to modern farming machinery and software development. Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See Prelim. Resp. 14. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts “[n]o terms need construction for this IPR” but “reserves the right to identify terms for construction as may become necessary in . . . ‘the District Court case’[] and to respond to any constructions that Patent Owner submits.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that no terms require construction” and also “reserves the right to identify terms for construction as may become necessary in the parallel district court litigation . . . and to respond to any construction that Petitioner may submit.” Prelim. Resp. 15. On this record, we determine that no claim term requires an express construction for the purpose of determining whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the ISO11783 requires a device to have a NAME field in order for the task controller to identify the device. See Ex. 1013, 12. However, we are not persuaded by Mr. Ault’s testimony or Petitioner’s arguments that the communication protocol must be defined in an implement profile such as the NAME field even if manufacturers use systems beyond those directly supported in the ISO11783. See Pet. 27–48; Ex. 1013, 28, 33; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64, 114–125, 162–167; Ex. 1014, 5, 9. The NAME field specifies ECU function and place in a network. See Ex. 1010, 9–10. However, it is not clear why any communication protocol would identify the function or place of an ECU in a network, which is the purpose of the NAME field. See Pet. 37–38 (“The NAME field includes a device class, manufacturer code, and identity number among other fields.”). Petitioner has not explained sufficiently otherwise. We further observe that Mr. Ault alludes that ISO11783 provides a standardized, and thus known, communication protocol that supports the use of proprietary communications simultaneous with standardized messages. Id. ¶ 64. Mr. Ault later surmises that “it would have been obvious to a POSITA to store proprietary message formats for manufacturers that use proprietary message format.” Id. ¶ 167. We observe that in paragraphs 63 and 64 of his declaration, Mr. Ault relies on Exhibit 1014, titled “An Electronic Communication Protocol for Agricultural Equipment,” for the proposition that ISO11783 “supports the use of proprietary communications simultaneous with standardized messages” and “[m]anufacturers are free to implement enhanced control and information systems beyond those directly supported in the standard.” Id. ¶ 64 (citing Ex. 1014, 7)7 (alteration in original). We understand this cited disclosure in Exhibit 1014 acknowledges that proprietary communications are beyond those directly supported in the ISO11783 and that enhanced control and information systems are required for proprietary communications. Id. Said another way, these statements are consistent with our understanding that ISO11783 does not, by default, teach proprietary communication protocols defined in the device description fields, e.g., NAME field. Ex. 1014, 7 (“ISO11783 does not provide a complete design that can be implemented without further considerations on agricultural equipment.”). That being the case, we agree with Patent Owner’s position that the ISO11783 does not itself “identify different proprietary formats (i.e., the communication protocol) used by a given implement from a stored collection of implement profiles.” Prelim. Resp. 21. 7 Petitioner cites to page 9, however, we use the stamped page numbers for the exhibit. Even assuming for the moment that proprietary message formats “indicate” communication protocols, Petitioner has still not explained sufficiently why a POSITA would store those proprietary message formats in the NAME field. As noted above, the NAME field specifies ECU function and place in a network. See Ex. 1010, 9–10. However, it is not clear why proprietary message formats would identify the function or place of an ECU in a network. See id.; see also Pet. 37 (“The NAME field includes a device class, manufacturer code, and identity number among other fields.”).” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,107,017 - Farmers Edge, Inc. / Farmers Edge (US), Inc. v. Agi Suretrack, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00164 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7 would have been obvious over Nadison 610, Johnson, and ISO11783.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner. Claim 1 requires that “a plurality of implement profiles on the server system, each of which is associated with a respective known farming implement, the implement profiles each defining a known manufacturer code, a known device class, a known version and a known communication protocol for the respective known farming implement associated therewith.” Ex. 1001, 25:46–52 (emphases added).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Id. at 28. Table A.1 labeled “DeviceObject definition” lists attribute names in a far-left column with descriptions for each attribute name in a far-right column. Id. at 28. While Annex A provides several definitions for the DeviceObject, Petitioner has not explained persuasively how any of these fields is or includes a “communication protocol.” Indeed, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how the ISO11783 teaches that a communication protocol is defined as part of the DeviceObject, device descriptions, or NAME field. As shown, Annex A does not discuss or mention a communication protocol for any of these definitions.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“The testimony from Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Ault, is not persuasive in this regard. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 151–159. For example, in paragraph 152 of his declaration, he repeats the same citations of ISO11783 presented in the Petition. Ex. 1002 ¶ 152. Mr. Ault testifies that the POSITA would have understood that ISO11783 Part 10 directly teaches the POSITA to identify a device description object pool (a “communication protocol” in the language of the ’116 patent) using the NAME field (as WorkingSetMasterNAME) as well as other items such as a “Device Software Version” in table A-1. Ex. 1002 ¶ 152 (emphases added). Initially, we note that a citation to the entirety of ISO11783, Part 10 is hardly helpful. We decline to speculate on the specific disclosure the Petitioner relies upon in these 100 pages. Still, we observe that ISO11783 teaches that the NAME field describes the NAME of Working-set master, but does not describe a communication protocol. See Ex. 1013, 33. Similarly, the Device Software Version is described as “Software version indicating text;” not a communication protocol. Id. In other words, neither field includes a communication protocol.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’116 patent would have had: a bachelor’s degree in either electrical, computer, mechanical, or agricultural engineering or a similar degree and have at least 2 years of experience in heavy machinery telematics, and agricultural practice (including modern farming machinery and precision agriculture devices and systems), as well as networking and communications protocols specific to modern farming machinery and software development. Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See Prelim. Resp. 17. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,164,116 - Farmers Edge, Inc. / Farmers Edge (US), Inc. v. Agi Suretrack, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00158 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–19 would have been obvious over Nadison 610, Nadison 630, and ISO11783.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Table A.1 labeled “DeviceOject definition” lists attribute names in a far-left column with descriptions for each attribute name in a far-right column. Id. at 27. While Annex A provides several definitions for the DeviceObject, Petitioner has not explained persuasively how any of these fields is or includes a “communication protocol.” Indeed, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how the ISO11783 teaches that a communication protocol is defined as part of the DeviceObject, device descriptions, or NAME field. As shown, Annex A does not discuss or mention a communication protocol for any of these definitions.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1002 ¶ 156 (emphases added). Initially, we note that a citation to the entirety of ISO11783, Part 10 is hardly helpful. We decline to speculate on the specific disclosure the Petitioner relies upon in these 100 pages. Still, we observe that ISO11783 teaches that the NAME field describes the NAME of Working-set master, but does not describe a communication protocol. See Ex. 1013, 33. Similarly, the Device Software Version is described as “Software version indicating text;” not a communication protocol. Id. In other words, neither field includes a communication protocol.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in either electrical, computer, mechanical, or agricultural engineering or a similar degree and [] at least 2 years of experience in heavy machinery telematics, and agricultural practice (including modern farming machinery and precision agriculture devices and systems), as well as networking and communications protocols specific to modern farming machinery and software development. Additional education would compensate for less experience, and vice-versa. Pet. 11. Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s level of skill at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 15. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,126,937 - Intel Corporation v. 3d Surfaces, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Apr 19, 2023 · IPR2022-01591 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 10–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claims 10–20 would have been obvious over Sfarti and Foley.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related scientific field, and approximately two years of work experience in computer graphics or, alternatively, two years work towards a masters or doctorate degree in these proceeding, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s definition.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We agree with Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we agree with Petitioner that “unit” does not connote any particular structure, and that the terms “tessellation unit,” “transform unit,” “lighting unit,” and “rendering unit” recite function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. Therefore, these terms should be construed as means plus function terms. “Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process. The court must first identify the claimed function. Then, the court must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (citation omitted). In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit requires “that the specification disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function.” Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “A description of the function in words may disclose, at least to the satisfaction of one of ordinary skill in the art, enough of an algorithm to provide the necessary structure under § 112, ¶ 6.” Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “The law is clear that patent documents need not include subject matter that is known in the field of the invention and is in the prior art, for patents are written for persons experienced in the field of the invention.” S3 Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., 259 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Claim 10 recites “a transform unit that transforms the graphic objects into transformed objects.” Claim 15 recites a similar limitation. Claim 12 recites “said transform unit transforms the spatial coordinates of said graphic objects.” The specification discloses that the function of “transform[ing] the graphic objects into transformed objects” and “transform[ing] the spatial coordinates of said graphic objects” is performed by a graphics processing unit (GPU) including a dedicated processor programmed to execute the transform step of the disclosed microcode. Ex. 1001, 5:63–6:3; 7:10–15, 7:19–20, 12:49––52; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 106–107. We construe “transform unit” as a means plus function limitation with the function of transforming graphic objects into transformed objects (claims 10 and 15), or the function of transforming the spatial coordinates of said graphic objects (claim 12), and with the corresponding structure of a GPU including a dedicated processor programmed to execute the transform step of the microcode disclosed in the specification. b) Tessellation unit Claim 10 recites “a tessellation unit for tessellating the transformed objects.” Claims 11 and 15 recite a similar limitation. The specification discloses that the function of “tessellating the transformed objects” is performed by a GPU that includes a dedicated processor coupled between the transform unit and a lighting unit, where the dedicated processor is programmed to execute the tessellating steps of the disclosed microcode. Ex. 1001, 6:4–59, 7:10–15, 7:20–24, 12:49–52; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 108–109. We construe “tessellation unit” as a means plus function limitation with the function of tessellating the transformed objects and with the corresponding structure of a GPU including a dedicated processor coupled between the programmed to execute the tessellating steps of the disclosed microcode. c) Lighting unit Claim 10 recites a “lighting unit comprising means for lighting triangles resulting from said tessellation unit.” Claim 13 recites “a lighting unit . . . for lighting the tessellated transformed objects.” Claim 15 recites “lighting vertices of triangles resultant from said tessellating using said lighting unit.” The specification discloses that the function of “lighting triangles resulting from said tessellation unit,” “lighting the tessellated transformed objects,” and “lighting vertices of triangles resultant from said tessellating” is performed by a GPU that includes a dedicated processor programmed to execute code to light the vertices of the triangles. Ex. 1001, 6:60–65, 7:10–15, 7:24–26, 12:49–52; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110–111. We construe “lighting unit” as a means plus function limitation with the function of lighting triangles resulting from said tessellation unit (claim 10), lighting the tessellated transformed objects (claim 13), or lighting vertices of triangles resultant from said tessellating (claim 15), and with the corresponding structure of a GPU that includes a dedicated processor programmed to execute code to light the tessellated objects. d) Rendering unit Claim 14 recites “a rendering unit operatively coupled to the lighting unit for rendering the lighted, tessellated, transformed objects.” The specification discloses that the function of rendering the lighted, tessellated, transformed objects is performed by a GPU that includes a dedicated processor programmed to execute the rendering steps of the disclosed microcode. Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:3, 7:10–15, 7:24–26, 12:49–52; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–113. We construe “rendering unit” as a means plus function objects, and with the corresponding structure of a GPU that includes a dedicated processor to execute the rendering steps of the disclosed microcode.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“e) Remaining claim terms No other terms require express construction at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“We agree with Petitioner. Pages 511–527 of Foley were previously presented to the Office. See Ex. 1001, code (56). In contrast, Petitioner relies on pages 17, 279–281, 508, 521, 721, 736–737, 807, 855, 866–871, 873–879, 888, and 890–892 of Foley. See Pet. 30–77. Out of all of the pages of Foley cited in the Petition, only one, page 521, was previously presented to the Office. On the record before us, there is no indication that any of the remaining pages of Foley cited in the Petition were presented to, or considered by, the Office. Notably, the IDS disclosure cited just 17 pages out of Foley’s over 1200 pages of content, but did not cite the pages that teach the feature that the Examiner found was patentable over the prior art. Compare Ex. 1017, at 177 (In the statement of allowable subject matter, the Examiner concluded that “the prior [art] fails to teach a tessellate unit coupled between the transform unit and the lighting unit.”), with Ex. 1007, at 807 (Foley teaches that “tessellation should occur after transformation into a coordinate system in which screen size can be determined” for the benefits of “enabl[ing] tessellation size to be determined adaptively, and limit[ing] the amount of data that is transformed.”); see also id. at 866–877. Thus, the 2 U.S. Patent No. 7,532,213, which was reissued as the ’534 patent at issue here. See Ex. 1001, code (64). previously presented to the Office. Patent Owner contends that even if Petitioner cites to portions of Foley not considered by the Office, the Examiner considered other references that are cumulative to and substantially the same as the portions of Foley cited by Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 22. In particular, Patent Owner contends that the ’534 patent recognizes that pipeline graphics architecture was well-known at the time of invention, and that other references that teach pipeline graphics architecture were considered by the Office. Prelim. Resp. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 2, 2:42–58; Ex. 1032, Fig. 2b, 5:18–22; Ex. 1033, Fig. 1A, 6:28–31, 21:1–3). We disagree with Patent Owner. Foley’s disclosure of a pipeline graphics architecture that teaches the benefits of employing dedicated processors for tessellating after transforming is explicit and, so far as we can tell from the record presented, is not found in any reference previously cited to the Office. See Ex. 1007, 807, 866–877. Thus, the same or substantially the same art was not previously presented to the Office.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
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.