- Intel Corporation v. 3d Surfaces, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Apr 19, 2023 · IPR2022-01589 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 9–11, 17, and 18 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be shown obvious over Sfarti and Foley.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“of the ’299 patent considered the same argument presented in the Petition’s obviousness combination of Sfarti and Foley, and correspondingly “determined that it would not have been obvious to modify the teachings of [Sfarti] to implement the ordered steps in a GPU” based on Foley. Prelim. Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1002, 64–69, 112–114, 172–180). Specifically, we disagree that the Examiner’s double patenting rejection presents the same argument as the Petition’s obviousness combination. The Examiner stated “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to substitute the computer readable medium of claim 21 [of the ’501 patent] with the graphics processing unit of [original claim 1].” Ex. 1002, 67. The Examiner, in making this obviousness-type double patenting rejection3, did not find a prior art reference that showed a graphics processing unit with separately dedicated processors. Rather, the Examiner attempted to use the graphics processing unit recited in original claim 1 as prior art against itself. The applicant successfully argued against the Examiner’s improper use of the pending claims as prior art by stating that the ’501 patent did not disclose the graphics processing unit incorporating the tessellation unit as claimed. See id. at 138, 175.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“that upon institution Dell will not pursue any grounds in the [District Court Litigation] that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in its IPR petition for the challenged claims.” Reply 1 (citing IPR2023-00004, Paper 134). More precisely, however, Dell has actually stated in IPR2023-00004 that Dell “will stipulate, consistent with Sotera Wireless, that if this IPR [i.e., IPR2023-00004] is instituted, [Dell] will not pursue in the parallel district court proceeding any grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised in this IPR for the challenged claims.” IPR2023-00004, Paper 13, 1 (emphases added). Contemporaneously with the present Decision, we are issuing a decision in IPR2023-00004 instituting review of the ’299 patent on the same two grounds being instituted here, and we also are joining the two proceedings together for purposes of trial. Thus, Dell’s stipulation has taken effect.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On this record, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill would have implemented the steps of transforming, tessellating, lighting, and rendering as taught by Sfarti in a graphics pipeline of dedicated processors as taught by Foley to yield the benefits of providing more processing power than a single CPU can provide, and significantly improving performance speed. See Pet. 31–38; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–147. On this record we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have performed tessellating after transforming using the graphics pipeline of dedicated processors of Foley to yield the benefits of adaptively determining tessellation size and limiting the amount of data that needs to be transformed as taught by Foley.” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to the ’299 patent “would have had at least 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 scientific fields.” Pet. 10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 96–97. Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s definition” in the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 9.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,245,299 - PTAB · Apr 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01489 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(4) Claim 1 – Conclusion For these reasons, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 1 would have been obvious over the proposed combination of Lairson and Erdogan, and over the proposed combination of Lairson and Tsai-133.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“set of layers includes oxygen.” Ex. 1001, 10:41–49. Petitioner argues that the proper construction of this limitation “means that there is a third set of layers on the opposite side of the substrate, whether or not [the layers] include oxygen” – i.e., that the third set of layers do not need to include oxygen. Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner contends that this is a typographical error and “wherein” was intended. Prelim. Resp. 8 n.2. Petitioner asserts that “each of the challenges presented in this Petition” addresses “adding a third set of layers with oxygen on a second side of a substrate.” Pet. 8. Because we find Petitioner’s contentions to be sufficient for institution even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we need not address Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We also conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for any other claim terms. See id.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Patent Owner does not oppose or comment on Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ794 patent, we apply a slightly modified 4 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations. version of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that removes the open-ended term “at least.”. On this record and for the purposes of institution, we determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ794 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“However, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the combination are directed towards a bodily incorporation of structures described in the references, rather than the combination of their teachings proposed by Petitioner. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Given the teachings in each reference and our direction that an ordinarily skilled artisan is a person of ordinary creativity, we find, on this preliminary record, that Petitioner has adequately shown that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have applied Lairson’s teachings regarding a short-pass filter with Erdogan or Tsai-133’s teachings concerning filter layers on both sides of a substrate used to form a bandpass filter. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Petitioner’s proposed combination does not involve adding the exact layers taught in Erdogan and Tsai-133 on the second side of the substrate to Lairson’s short-pass filter on the first side of the substrate. Pet. 33–34, 36– 39. Rather, Petitioner proposes, in one example, using the same materials for filter stacks on both sides of the substrate. Id. at 37–38. Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments that adding the second-side layers disclosed in Erdogan and Tsai-133 to the first-side layers of Lairson is not responsive to Petitioner’s proposed combination. Additionally, on the present record, we credit Petitioner’s declarant’s uncontroverted testimony that Lairson does not explicitly describe a bandpass filter with a long pass filter, and thus that one of ordinary skill would have looked to Erdogan and Tsai-133 for the technique of using a long-pass filter on the other side of the substrate. Id. at 34–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 152, 158). On the present record, and for the purposes of institution, Petitioner sufficiently shows that the combination of Lairson and either Erdogan and Tsai-133 teaches a near infrared band pass filter comprising a first set of layers on the first side, wherein the first set of layers includes silicon and hydrogen, and a second set of layers on the first side, wherein the second set of layers includes oxygen. Additionally, on the present record and for the purposes of institution, Petitioner sufficiently sets forth its showing with respect to the motivation to combine the teachings of Lairson with those of Erdogan or Tsai-133 as it proposes.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,131,794 - Revcontent, LLC v. Integrated Advertising Labs, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 22, 2023 · IPR2022-01511 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1–9 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An 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(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’121 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner has the better claim construction position. The “non-” in “non-sponsored posts” indicates that the phrase means “not” or “other than” “sponsored posts.” See Ex. 3001 (https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/non- (accessed March 21, 2023) (defining “non-” as “not: other than: reverse of: absence of”)). In terms of Petitioner’s proposed construction for “sponsored posts,” “non-sponsored posts” are content not from an advertiser. Construing the phrases in terms of the content source rather than whether it is “regular” content, as Petitioner implies, is consistent with the Specification’s description of Figure 6. See Ex. 1001, 13:44–55. The Specification distinguishes post types based on source—posts by members of the forum and press release posts from the advertisers. See id. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that “non-sponsored posts” means content not from an advertiser.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s contentions are based in large part on the assertion that “[Koeppel’s] provider content represents the ‘non-sponsored posts,’ e.g., the regular content provided on the site.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125– 126). As discussed above in the claim construction section, we do not adopt Petitioner’s implied claim construction position, and construe “non-sponsored posts” as content not from an advertiser, rather than simply regular content provided on the site. Both Koeppel references describe the “provider” as one that markets goods and services. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Koeppel), 2:34–36 (“Providers associate the users ‘browsing’ these Web pages as potential consumers for the products and services they provide.”); Ex. 1006 (Koeppel-II), 9:46–47 (“The provider governing the Web server determines the types of content it wishes to market.”); see also Prelim. Resp. 26–27 (noting the Petition at page 35, in quoting Koeppel, utilizes ellipses to omit the explanation that the “content selected by a provider” “[m]ay represent alternate products or renderings of existing products or services offered by the provider” (Ex. 1005, 8:41–45)). Figure 4A is consistent with this understanding by depicting Capital One credit card marketing information in the boxes labeled 410, 420, and 425. See Ex. 1006, 9:60–65 (Koeppel-II describing elements 410, 420, and 425 as offers for credit cards offered by “the provider”). Thus, the provider content in Figure 4A—that which Petitioner characterizes as “regular content”—is marketing content, and Petitioner has not explained adequately how that is not content from an advertiser, i.e., “non-sponsored posts.” Petitioner’s contention that elements 420 and 425 are sponsored posts and element 410 is a non-sponsored post also is based on the discussion in Koeppel-II of third party advertising fees. See Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1006, 22:7–12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 144–147); see also id. at 36 (addressing the preamble). Koeppel-II utilizes windows 420 and 425 in Figure 4A as examples of different ad formats for determining how much to charge third party advertisers. Ex. 1006, 22:5–14 (“[The] fee may be altered based on whether the third party content was fully in-view or partially in-view. . . . Assume for purposes of this example that windows 420 and 425 are advertisement content provided by a third party entity 180.”). Koeppel-II is not distinguishing third party ads and non-sponsored content, as Petitioner implies. Pet. 36–37, 39–40; cf. id. at 35 (contending that “Koeppel discloses that ‘sponsored posts,’ or information from an advertiser, is included with the non-sponsored posts” but only identifying a sponsored post (in the form of a third party banner ad), and not identifying a non-sponsored post). Rather, Koeppel-II is distinguishing the amount of content viewable in the two windows for fee-setting purposes. Ex. 1006, 22:8–9 (“Window 425 is in partial view, while window 420 is in full view.”). Even if the Koeppel references were deemed to disclose third party advertisements inserted alongside Capital One’s “regular” marketing content, the pre-existing nature of that “regular” marketing content does not convert it into non-sponsored posts. We determine that Petitioner has not adequately explained how Koeppel, Koeppel-II, or the combination thereof discloses or suggests displaying a sponsored post among non-sponsored posts on a web page. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood in” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“by Google and were filed within months of each other, and contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “reviewing Haveliwala would have naturally looked to other work done by Google engineers, such as Bharat, for further guidance and insight as to the work Google was doing around personalized Web advertising.” Pet. 76 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 259). Petitioner’s reasoning is too generalized. The existence of a common assignee or that a person of ordinary skill in the art might look to another reference in the same broadly characterized field does not provide adequate reasoning as to why such a person would combine the specific relied-on teachings of the two references so as to arrive at the claimed subject matter. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,147,121 - PTAB · Mar 3, 2023 · IPR2022-01359 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–15 on all asserted obviousness grounds based on Park, Kim, Williams, and, for claims 11–13, Hileman.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“III. DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner argues the Board should exercise discretion to deny institution under Fintiv6 “due to the advanced state of the parallel District 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), included revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective after the filing of the applications to which the ’191 patent claims priority. Therefore, we apply the pre-AIA version of the statute. 2 WO 01/11523 A1, published Feb. 15, 2001 (Ex. 1005) (“Park”). 3 KR2003-0085802, published Nov. 7, 2003 (Ex. 1007). The Petition relies on a certified translation of this Korean language reference (Ex. 1006), which we refer to herein as “Kim.” 4 WO 2008/052013 A2, published May 2, 2008 (Ex. 1008) (“Williams”). 5 US 2003/0040944 A1, published Feb. 27, 2003 (Ex. 1009) (“Hileman”). 6 Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). Court proceeding.” See Prelim. Resp. 4–15. Petitioner contends that the Fintiv factors do not favor discretionary denial here. See Pet. 71–74. After considering the parties’ arguments and the circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In particular, Petitioner has stipulated that if inter partes review is instituted it will not pursue the invalidity grounds raised in the Petition or any other ground that reasonably could have been raised in the Delaware litigation. Ex. 1033, 1. The Director has provided guidance stating that, when such a stipulation is presented, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of the parallel litigation. See Ex. 1013, 3, 7.7 That guidance applies here.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. Even assuming the Examiner considered the particular disclosures Patent Owner cites in Angert, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Park and Kim provide additional teachings that are material to the challenged claims. For example, the Petition relies on Park’s teaching that the delivery agent has a mobile digital camera that provides the customer with a “live video feed of the delivery of their order” that they can “interactively view, in real-time.” See, e.g., Pet. 18, 34–35 (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:27–32, 48:18–20). Moreover, the Petition relies on Kim’s teaching that in addition to providing images of the delivery, a delivery agent can utilize a digital camera in mobile communication terminal to send images of the product to the customer so they “can confirm whether the product ordered is identical to the product being delivered.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–2). As explained in our analysis of Ground 1 below, such teachings are material to Petitioner’s patentability challenges. We see no corollary to these teachings in Angert nor does Patent Owner otherwise identify any similar teachings or arguments the Examiner previously considered. See generally Prelim. Resp. 44–46. For these reasons, the Petition does not present the same or substantially the same art or arguments as that previously presented to the Office. Because the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework has not been met, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner’s showing is sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in demonstrating that claims 1 and 14 are obvious over Park, Kim, and Williams. Patent Owner’s arguments against institution in the Preliminary Response are unavailing on the current record. We address those arguments below.” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in August 2009 (the earliest alleged priority date) would have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the electronic commerce arts that are pertinent to the ’191 patent. That person would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of electronic commerce. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner offers a similar description of a POSITA. Prelim. Resp. 19. At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this Decision. Moreover, we do not perceive any meaningful difference between the parties’ respective descriptions of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,202,191 - PTAB · Mar 3, 2023 · IPR2022-01358 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18, 19, and 21–28 on all asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In particular, Petitioner has stipulated that if inter partes review is instituted it will not pursue the invalidity grounds raised in the Petition or any other ground that reasonably could have been raised in the Delaware litigation. Ex. 1033, 1. The Director has provided guidance stating that, when such a stipulation is presented, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of the parallel litigation. See Ex. 1013, 3, 7.8 That guidance applies here.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. Even assuming the Examiner considered the particular disclosures Patent Owner cites in Angert, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Park and Kim provide additional teachings that are material to the challenged claims. For example, the Petition relies on Park’s teaching that the delivery agent has a mobile digital camera that provides the customer with a “live video feed of the delivery of their order” that they can “interactively view, in real-time.” See, e.g., Pet. 18, 34–35 (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:27–32, 48:18–20). Moreover, the Petition relies on Kim’s teaching that in addition to providing images of the delivery, a delivery agent can utilize a digital camera in mobile communication terminal to send images of the product to the customer so they “can confirm whether the product ordered is identical to the product being delivered.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–2). As explained in our analysis of Ground 1 below, such teachings are material to Petitioner’s patentability challenges. We see no corollary to these teachings in Angert nor does Patent Owner otherwise identify any similar teachings or arguments the Examiner previously considered. See generally Prelim. Resp. 44–46. For these reasons, the Petition does not present the same or substantially the same art or arguments as that previously presented to the Office. Because the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework has not been met, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On the current record, we disagree with Patent Owner and find that Petitioner has articulated a sufficient rationale for combining the references. Petitioner asserts, supported by the testimony of its declarant and teachings in Park and Kim, that the combination would “enhance the reliability of the delivery” and “increase customer satisfaction” by providing a “a sensory cue of a visual comparison between the product to be delivered and the desired product.” See Pet. 20–23 (citing exhibits). Petitioner also explains that the problem Kim’s product confirmation functionality is intended to address is “particularly acute” for perishable items such as food, which Park teaches its system is designed to deliver. Id. at 21. Petitioner acknowledges that adding Kim’s functionality would add time to the delivery process, but argues that “[a]ny additional time . . . could be absorbed into the desired hour delivery time of Park” or “alternatively, a POSITA would have recognized that the confirmation teachings of Kim could be provided as an option to the user with an advisory message to the user that such confirmation may add time to his or her order.” Id. at 23–24. Petitioner’s rationale is reasonable on the current record. While Park is focused on providing fast delivery, it would seem that a POSITA would also understand that delivering the wrong product is likely to cause an even greater delay then the additional time necessary to for the delivery agent to send a product image and receive customer confirmation. See Pet. 23 (urging that incorporating Kim’s functionality “would reduce the likelihood in Park that the delivery agent made an incorrect delivery, thereby saving resources in the Park system (e.g., by preventing the delivery of goods that would need to be returned and/or refunded”) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56; Ex. 1021, 3:4–53). Moreover, Petitioner’s argument that the product confirmation functionality could be presented as an option so as to balance the competing desire for fast delivery would seem to be a reasonable exercise of a POSITA’s ordinary creativity. See KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill in also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).” slip op. at 30
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner offers a similar description of a POSITA. Prelim. Resp. 18–19. At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this Decision. Moreover, we do not perceive any meaningful difference between the parties’ respective descriptions of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,115,067 - PTAB · Mar 3, 2023 · IPR2022-01357 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14–17, 21, 22, and 24–26 based on a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 24, and 26 are obvious over Park and Kim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Instacart submits that one skilled in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of electronic commerce” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art “would have been someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like and two years of working with platforms for the acquisition and delivery of products.” Prelim. Resp. 18. At this stage, we discern no meaningful difference between the levels of skill in the art espoused by the parties, given that working in the field of electronic commerce necessarily entails working with platforms for the acquisition and delivery of products. Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we adopt the level of skill in the art as articulated by Instacart.” slip op. at 4
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Notably, however, the district court did not adopt Consumeron’s proposed construction for this term. Instead, in a claim construction order dated January 18, 2023,6 the district court construed “mobile delivery agent system” to mean “a mobile system that includes at least a device to capture video or still images and a device set up to communicate with a remote server.” Ex. 1034, 1. In doing so, the district court expressly rejected Consumeron’s argument that an MDAS requires a “mobile computing device” and “the use of the internet.” Ex. 1035, 17. At this stage, we see no reason to depart from the district court’s careful and comprehensive analysis of this term. See id. at 13–17. Thus, for purposes of this proceeding, we adopt the district court’s construction of “mobile delivery agent system.”” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“We disagree with Consumeron that Instacart fails to articulate a sufficient reason for combining Park and Kim. Instacart asserts, with support from its declarant, that combining the teachings of Park and Kim would “enhance the reliability of the delivery” and “increase customer satisfaction” by “provid[ing] the sensory cue of a visual comparison between the product to be delivered and the desired product.” See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55; Ex. 1006, 1). Instacart also explains that the problem Kim’s product confirmation functionality is intended to address is “particularly acute” for perishable food items, which Park’s system is designed to deliver. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54; Ex. 1005, 1:11–21; Ex. 1006, 1–2; Ex. 1014, 2; Ex. 1022, 2–3). And although adding Kim’s functionality would add time to Park’s delivery process, Instacart notes that “[a]ny additional time . . . could be absorbed into the desired hour delivery time of Park” or “alternatively, a POSITA would have recognized that the confirmation teachings of Kim could be provided as an option to the user with an advisory message to the user that such confirmation may add time to his or her order.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 57). We find Instacart’s rationale for the asserted combination to be reasonable on the current record. Although Park is focused on providing fast delivery, one skilled in the art would have understood that delivery of an unacceptable product to the customer is of greater concern in terms of “cost and efficiency” than any additional time needed for the delivery agent to receive customer confirmation of an acceptable product. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 56.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We have considered the parties’ arguments and determine that the circumstances of this case do not warrant discretionary denial of the Petition. In particular, because Instacart has submitted a Sotera stipulation (Ex. 1033), we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a) in view of the parallel district court action. See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022), at 3, 7 (addressing impact of Sotera stipulation on the exercise of § 314(a) discretion). In addition, contrary to Consumeron’s assertion, neither Park nor Kim are sufficiently cumulative of Angert to warrant discretionary denial under § 325(d). See Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, 2020 WL 740292, *3–4 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). That is because Park and Kim provide additional material teachings not disclosed by Angert that include, for example, Park’s teaching that the delivery agent has a mobile digital camera that provides the customer with a “live video feed” of their order that they can “interactively view, in real-time” (Ex. 1005, 4:27–32, 48:18–20) and Kim’s teaching that a delivery agent can utilize a digital camera in a mobile communication terminal to send images to the customer so they “can confirm” that the product ordered is identical to the product being delivered (Ex. 1006, 1–2). Consumeron does not identify any similar teachings in Angert. See Prelim. Resp. 46–47. Thus, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 325(d).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,628,835 - PTAB · Mar 3, 2023 · IPR2022-01356 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 13–17, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 13 are obvious over Park and Kim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of electronic commerce” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art “would have been someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like and two years of working with platforms for the acquisition and delivery of products.” Prelim. Resp. 19. At this stage, we discern no meaningful difference between the levels of skill in the art espoused by the parties, given that working in the field of electronic commerce necessarily entails working with platforms for the acquisition and delivery of products. Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we adopt the level of skill in the art as articulated by Instacart.” slip op. at 4
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Notably, however, the district court did not adopt Consumeron’s proposed construction for this term. Instead, in a claim construction order dated January 18, 2023,5 the district court construed “mobile delivery agent system” to mean “a mobile system that includes at least a device to capture video or still images and a device set up to communicate with a remote server.” Ex. 1034, 1. In doing so, the district court expressly rejected Consumeron’s argument that an MDAS requires a “mobile computing device” and “the use of the internet.” Ex. 1035, 17. At this stage, we see no reason to depart from the district court’s careful and comprehensive analysis of this term. See id. at 13–17. Thus, for purposes of this proceeding, we adopt the district court’s construction of “mobile delivery agent system.” 2. “real time” Consumeron proposes that the term “real time” be construed to mean “data that is passed along as it is gathered.” Prelim. Resp. 22–23. The district court agreed with that proposed construction. See Ex. 1034, 2; Ex. 1035, 22–26. At this stage, we see no reason to question the district court’s construction. As such, we adopt the district court’s construction of “real time.”” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“been motivated to combine the teachings of Park and Kim. See Prelim. Resp. 33–39. According to Consumeron, one skilled in the art would not have undertaken ‘to modify Park’s system with Kim’s technique because it directly undermine[s] Park’s requirement for ‘extremely fast and efficient’ delivery based on optimized routing algorithms used to determine delivery manifests” and “waiting for customer confirmation defeats Park’s intended goal.” Id. at 34. Consumeron also contends that Instacart “fails to show how this time [i.e., the time to send a product image and receive confirmation from the user] would even be factored into Park’s routing algorithms.” Id.; see also id. at 37–38 (“Petitioner’s bare-bone contention that Kim’s technique would only take two minutes to implement finds no evidentiary support from the record.”). We disagree with Consumeron that Instacart fails to articulate a sufficient reason for combining Park and Kim. Instacart asserts, with support from its declarant, that combining the teachings of Park and Kim would “enhance the reliability of the delivery” and “increase customer satisfaction” by “provid[ing] the sensory cue of a visual comparison between the product to be delivered and the desired product.” See Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55; Ex. 1006, 1). Instacart also explains that the problem Kim’s product confirmation functionality is intended to address is “particularly acute” for perishable food items, which Park’s system is designed to deliver. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54; Ex. 1005, 1:11–21; Ex. 1006, 1–2; Ex. 1014, 2; Ex. 1022, 2–3). And although adding Kim’s functionality would add time to Park’s delivery process, Instacart notes that “[a]ny additional time . . . could be absorbed into the desired hour delivery time of Park” or “alternatively, a POSITA would have recognized that the confirmation teachings of Kim could be provided as an option to the user with an advisory message to the user that such confirmation may add time to his or her order.” Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 57). We find Instacart’s rationale for the asserted combination to be reasonable on the current record. Although Park is focused on providing fast delivery, one skilled in the art would have understood that delivery of an unacceptable product to the customer is of greater concern in terms of “cost and efficiency” than any additional time needed for the delivery agent to receive customer confirmation of an acceptable product. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 56.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Consumeron argues that we should exercise discretion to deny institution under § 314(a) due to the advanced state of the parallel district court action. See Prelim. Resp. 4–15. Consumeron also argues that we should exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because Park and Kim are substantially the same as another reference previously considered during prosecution of the ’594 patent, namely, Angert.11 Id. at 43–45. Instacart disputes that discretionary denial is warranted under either § 314(a) or § 325(d). See Pet. 67–73. We have considered the parties’ arguments and determine that the circumstances of this case do not warrant discretionary denial of the Petition. In particular, because Instacart has submitted a Sotera stipulation (Ex. 1033), we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a) in view of the parallel district court action. See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022), at 3, 7 (addressing impact of Sotera stipulation on the exercise of § 314(a) discretion). In addition, contrary to Consumeron’s assertion, neither Park nor Kim are sufficiently cumulative of Angert to warrant discretionary denial under § 325(d). See Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, 2020 WL 740292, *3–4 (PTAB Feb. 13,” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,244,594 - Go1 Pty, Ltd. v. Opensesame, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Feb 27, 2023 · IPR2022-01439 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims, 1–16, finding a reasonable likelihood they are unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’113 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner states that it “generally agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner adds that “the level of ordinary skill in the art is more often premised not upon obtaining a formal degree in computer engineering, computer science, etc., but through years of hands-on experience in the field, often coupled with formal coursework that may or may not lead to a degree in the enumerated fields.” Id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶ 49). We determine on the current record that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt that level for the purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes express constructions for any claim terms. See Pet. 8 (“To resolve the particular grounds presented in this Petition, Petitioner does not believe that any term requires explicit construction.”); Prelim. Resp. 11 (“Patent Owner believes that the patent claims at issue can be interpreted without the need for the formal construction of any claim terms.”). We determine that no claim terms require express construction in order to determine whether to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner sufficiently shows that, in implementing Sperle’s teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Madison, given its disclosure of a similar system architecture and similar goals and benefits. Pet. 16–18; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–83. Petitioner also sufficiently shows that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Madison’s teachings with Sperle’s teachings to provide improved access to content, improved authorization of users, an improved licensing system, and robust reporting. Ex. 1006 ¶ 6 (explaining as background that “a need exists for an improved system and method for controlling access to digital content, particularly streaming media content, and authorizing end users”); Ex. 1005 ¶ 11 (disclosing that “learning management system 140 often offers robust reporting capabilities”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 82. Petitioner also sufficiently shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the basic e-learning teachings of Sperle with the controlled content delivery system taught by Madison. Pet. 20–21; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 83–86. Such a combination would have included (i) applying the access and license control software teachings of Madison to Sperle’s teachings regarding reporting module 214; and (ii) adding the browser-based content-accessing features of Madison into the similar browser-based user systems of Sperle. Pet. 20–21; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 83–84. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Sperle and Madison purport to solve controlled e-learning content delivery systems in similar ways and propose solutions using the same type of hardware and software with similar functionalities. Pet. 20–21; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–86.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,784,113 - Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01184 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“8. Conclusion Based on the record before us, we determine Petitioner’s proffered arguments, evidence, and supporting testimony fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 17, 18, 20–23, 27, 30, and 31 would have been obvious over Pilgrim, Gibbons, Lairson, and Yoda.” slip op. at 32
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“II. ANALYSIS A. Discretionary Denial – 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner argues that we should exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”), weigh in favor of denying institution (Prelim. Resp. 49–54). Petitioner argues we should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv (Pet. 66–67). Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“B. Discretionary Denial – 35 U.S.C. §325(d) Patent Owner contends we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because of the Petition’s “reliance upon the secondary references Gibbons, Lairson, and Yoda. Gibbons and Lairson were considered by the Examiner, and Yoda does not contain any meaningful additional disclosure or basis for unpatentability that was not considered by the Examiner” (Prelim. Resp. 21–22). Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged in those grounds would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ269 Patent, we apply a slightly modified version of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that removes the qualification of “at least” and clarifies some statements (see Pet. 6). More specifically, we determine a POSITA would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in physics, or in a related science or engineering field, along with five years of experience in optical element design and optical filters although additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree with exposure to optical element design and optical filters) may substitute for some industrial experience in optical element and optical filter design, and more industrial experience can substitute for a different educational background. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ269 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,588,269 - Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01281 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6–11, 13–17, and 19 were obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”), weigh in favor of denying institution. Prelim. Resp. 43–47. Petitioner argues we should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv. Pet. 58–59; Paper 9. 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner uses the pre-AIA statutory framework in its analysis. Pet. 1 n.1. Patent Owner does not comment on this. The ’794 patent claims priority to a provisional filed before March 16, 2013, the effective date of the applicable AIA amendments. Thus, we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our decision would be the same were we to apply the AIA version of the statute. Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Patent Owner does not oppose or comment on Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ526 patent, we apply a slightly modified version of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that removes the qualification of “at least” and clarifies some statements. More specifically, we determine a POSITA would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in physics, or in a related science or engineering field, along with 3 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations. five years of experience in optical element design and optical filters although additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree with exposure to optical element design and optical filters) may substitute for some industrial experience in optical element and optical filter design, and more industrial experience can substitute for a different educational background. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ794 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts the term “center wavelength” (recited in claims 8, 9, and 17) should be interpreted as “the average of the two half-power wavelengths (i.e., [full width half maximum]) in a passband.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:53–56, 9:1–4, FIGS. 7D, 8C, 9B; Ex. 1037, 5; Ex. 1039 ¶ 47). Petitioner asserts the term “passband” (recited in claim 14) should be interpreted as “a wavelength range within which a signal can pass through a filter and outside of which the signal is blocked,” as per Patent Owner’s construction Id. (citing Ex. 1037, 12–15). Patent Owner does not directly address Petitioner’s proposed interpretations or provide its own constructions for any claim term. See generally Prelim. Resp. Having considered the record, we conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). E. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 – Obviousness over Pilgrim, Yoda, and Thelen” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,131,794
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.