- PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00919 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 would have been obvious over Leaning.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“The Board’s application of these factors “is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner.” Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 2, 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). “Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors,” and if the second petitioner and the first petitioner have a “significant relationship with respect to . . . [the challenged patent],” then the Board will consider the first petition in its General Plastic analysis. Id. at 9–10.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“2. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during Resp. 14, 16–17) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][2] (see Pet. 19–21) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4–6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Leaning is substantially the same as Leaning US, which was previously presented to the Office. b. Advanced Bionics Part Two To determine whether Petitioner has shown material error, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments,” and if that record “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f).” Id. As Petitioner notes (see Pet. 69), the record regarding the Office’s” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“On this record, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning teaches that each copy of the video is divided into sub-files that correspond to different temporal portions of the video. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:20– 28, 3:5–18, p.7 (table). We are also preliminarily persuaded Leaning teaches that each sub-file represents the same fixed time period (e.g., four seconds), and that each of Leaning’s sub-files has a corresponding sub-file in the other copies. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 6:21–7:2 (including table), 12:8–20. Moreover, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning’s sub-files each have a time index because the sub-file names are sequentially numbered. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 7:1–2, 12:16–20, p. 7 (table); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 73. Accordingly, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Leaning teaches elements 1[A][3], 1[A][4], and 1[A][5].8 1[B]: “requesting by the media player a plurality of sequential ones of the files of one of the copies from the set of servers over a plurality of Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indexes;” Petitioner contends that Leaning teaches and/or renders obvious element 1[B]. Pet. 29–35. According to Petitioner, Leaning teaches that terminal 3 requests a plurality of sequential sub-files of one of the copies from server 1. Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:12–19, 2:15–18, 5:4– 6:2, 6:27–7:2, 8:6–16, 23:3–10 (claim 1), 24:28–35 (claim 11), 25:17–20 (claim 16); Ex. 1003 ¶ 79; Pet. 21–29). Petitioner also asserts that an 8 Although we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative contention that element 1[A][5] would have been obvious over Leaning, we will evaluate that contention in our final written decision if appropriate.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,868,772 - Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01163 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Morris and Ray, with claims 10, 11, 13, and 20 also unpatentable over Morris, Ray, and Cox.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art, except that Patent Owner states that the industry experience would have been “in analyzing and/or designing exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field.” PO Resp. 15–16. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’227 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 28 n.10. Moreover, all of our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends it means “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” PO Resp. 4–6. According to Patent Owner, the Specification defines this claim term. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 51:37– 40:59–6:4). In its briefing, Petitioner disagreed with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, arguing that it is “overly narrow . . . and arbitrarily excludes other forms of ‘exercise use data.’” Pet. Reply 2–4. However, during the oral hearing, Petitioner adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Tr. 14:12–15:17. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s narrower construction and assume that “exercise use data” is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” We do not need to further construe this term because Petitioner shows that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction of it.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Morris and Ray because they provide complementary teachings and address similar objectives. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 5:41–48, 8:22–26, 11:56–61, 13:20–30; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 25, 33, 35, Abstr.; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138). Petitioner also asserts that Morris contemplates use of an optical sensor, provides exercise data and “a human analog display that mimic[s] the user’s bouncing motion,” and includes a signal processing and display system with the necessary capabilities to implement the combination. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 139–143; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32–36, 50, 56–58, claims 29–37, Figs. 6, 11–12C); see also id. at 26–27 (asserting that “including multiple sensors in treadmills was a routine and well-known task”) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 159–162). Petitioner further asserts that Ray expressly teaches that “its user validation and motivation technology could be ‘easily and affordably merged’ into a treadmill.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1004, 9:55–57) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–144). Finally, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the proposed combination because it would have improved Morris’ treadmill to add both “Ray’s motivational image that showed a thinner image of the user as the intensity and duration of exercise increased” and Ray’s ability to share exercise data with a remote location. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 7:11–22, 11:55–59, 13:50–57; Ex. 1006 ¶ 50; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138, 145); see also id. at 16 (arguing that detection of a user’s presence could provide benefits, including motivation (citing Ex. 1004, 8:22–26, 11:56–61; Ex. 1006 ¶ 25)), 41 (arguing that data transmission was “a well-known and routine task” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 188–189)). Patent Owner does not dispute these contentions. See PO Resp. We find that Petitioner has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 16–18, 26–27; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138, 140–145, 161, 189; see also, e.g., Ex. 1004, 5:27–29, 7:11–22, 9:55–57.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the testimony of Mr. van der Weide, who agrees with Patent Owner (see Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35, 60–71), but we give his testimony on these points little weight. Mr. van der Weide discusses Mr. Rawls’ testimony, but he does not meaningfully discuss Ray’s disclosure. See id. As a result, he does not reconcile his opinions with the apparently conflicting portions of Ray. In addition, Mr. van der Weide’s testimony is conclusory because he does not identify evidence or reasoning sufficient to support his opinion that Ray fails to teach or suggest these aspects of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,032,227 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,032,227 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00425 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 10 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute review. 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 the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and informed by the pre-institution record, shows “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 explained below, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In evaluating arguments under Section 325(d), we use a two-part framework, determining, first, “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.” Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). If either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, we then determine “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Id. Petitioner’s challenge over the combination of Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy counsels us not to discretionarily deny institution. Patent Owner does not dispute that Beck and Heller were not before the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 42–43; Prelim. Sur-reply 3. Although Patent Owner characterizes that as “irrelevant” (Prelim. Sur-reply 3), Petitioner asserts it relies on Beck to teach the limitation leading to allowance (Prelim. Reply 3). In fact, the Petition largely relies on Beck, or the combination of Beck and Heller, in its obviousness challenge and only relies on Lovejoy for a sliver of 11 Chapter 31 (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319) relates to inter partes review. first part of Advanced Bionics is not satisfied and do not exercise our discretion to deny institution for this reason. Even if we were to reach the second part of Advanced Bionics, we agree with Petitioner the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims by not applying the combination of Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy during prosecution, as evidenced by Petitioner’s reliance on that combination in its unpatentability challenges. Prelim. Reply 3; see Pet. 69–70. Petitioner specifically points out the Office erred by overlooking Beck’s “disclosure of the limitation that allegedly was missing from the prior art and led to allowance,” i.e., “wherein the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID . . . and communicates to said wireless device . . . software related to the unique sensor ID.” Prelim. Reply 3. Patent Owner, at most, suggests Petitioner fails to demonstrate the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims because Petitioner’s combination does not show unpatentability. See Prelim. Resp. 43. However, as detailed in our analysis above, Petitioner adequately shows that the claims would have been obvious over the combination of Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d) over Petitioner’s challenge based on Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy. We need not address whether Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s challenge based on Bandy warrants discretionary denial. Prelim. Resp. 40–42.” slip op. at 43
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine the plain language and structure of the limitation does not support a construction requiring authentication using both the unique sensor ID and the unique wireless ID, as asserted by Patent Owner. The claim recites “the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID associated with said unique wireless device ID,” but Patent Owner’s construction appears to read out the phrase “associated with” and adds an unrecited requirement to the claim such that the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID and said unique wireless device ID. Ex. 1001, 19:51–52 (emphasis added). The language and structure of the limitation reads that the unique wireless ID is “associated with” the unique sensor ID. As such, the last portion of the limitation reciting “associated with said unique wireless device ID” serves to further describe the unique sensor ID, specifically, that the unique sensor ID is associated with the unique wireless device ID. 8 In Petitioner’s Reply and Patent Owner’s Sur-reply, the parties dispute the construction of this phrase. See Prelim. Reply 2; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–3. Those arguments go beyond the scope of the briefing we authorized on discretionary denial and inventorship (see Ex. 3001), so we do not consider them here. using both the unique sensor ID and a unique wireless device ID. The Specification does not use, let alone define, the terms “server” or “authentication.” See generally Ex. 1001. To the extent the Specification provides examples of access to a remote computer, those examples describe access on the basis of a sensor ID—but not a wireless device ID. In one example, a wireless device obtains software for a RFID sensor tag from “a centralized database for RFID tags or a diagnostics database that is accessed only by paying an access fee. Subsequently, the ID of the RFID sensor is matched to a given class of sensor (e.g. a glucose sensor) and the software and/or instructions for the analyses are downloaded” to the wireless device. Ex. 1001, 18:16–23 (emphasis added). Another example similarly provides access solely on the basis of a sensor ID: “a patient can . . . upload into the cell phone the necessary information to conduct any given test by matching the ID of the RFID sensor with given software and data tables stored remotely on computer 400.” Id. at 16:50–56 (emphasis added). Accordingly, for institution purposes, we construe “wherein the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID associated with said unique wireless device ID” such that the remote server’s authentication requires use of a unique sensor ID; but the remote server’s authentication does not require use of the unique wireless device ID.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed petitioner construction§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we agree with Petitioner that the identified limitations—which each recite a “means” or “means for” performing a particular function—are means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). We are also preliminarily persuaded that Petitioner correctly identifies the recited functions and corresponding structure for these limitations. See Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:20–21, 2:24–28, 3:33–36, 17:18–30); see Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1009, 9:4–6, 9:19–20, 9:57–65, 10:10–11) (explaining that Lovejoy is incorporated by reference into the ’307 Patent). For purposes of this Decision, we apply the constructions identified by Petitioner. These are shown in the table below:” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,969,307 - Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00398 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Dill, Vadhri, and Akashika because Dill was not shown to disclose the claimed Integration Tier Limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s undisputed formulation of ordinary skill in the art as set forth above, because we are satisfied this formulation generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’196 patent and the asserted prior art. We do not adopt Patent Owner’s annotation to Petitioner’s formulation as requiring knowledge of “mobile wallets” specifically, because we determine knowledge of “mobile payment systems and techniques” per Petitioner’s formulation is tied sufficiently to the claims of the ’196 patent to reflect the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. At the same time, even if we were to include knowledge of “mobile wallets” in our formulation, it would not materially change our Decision as set forth below. That is, we would still determine Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dill discloses the Integration Tier Limitation.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyNot reached
“We need not resolve the parties’ dispute as to whether Dr. Houh qualifies as an ordinarily skilled artisan. Even assuming that Dr. Houh possesses, at a minimum, ordinary skill in the art—as we have done in this Decision—we determine Petitioner still fails to show that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“The Integration Tier Limitation requires no further construction for purposes of this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 7 (“[N]o specific construction is required.”). The claim clearly specifies that the claimed “web services communication mechanisms” must serve as an interface between the integration tier and (1) the claimed mobile wallet application and, separately, (2) “a plurality of different device types over a plurality of different communication channels.” For purposes of this Decision, we assume that this interface may be direct or indirect. See id. at 6 (asserting that “communication channels that interface, even indirectly, with the ‘web services communication mechanisms’ still interface with the ‘web services communication mechanisms’”).” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, we find that of those four channels (1)–(4), only the first channel (1) is associated with web interface 137 such that it qualifies as a “communication channel,” as required by claim 1. There is no indication in the Dill disclosures cited by Petitioner that any of the other three channels (2)–(4) are associated with web interface 137. For example, Figure 9 of Dill includes a double-headed arrow to illustrate communication between web interface 137 and transfer options module 145, but Figure 9 does not include any arrows to illustrate communication between web interface 137 and any one or more of IVR interface 136, other interfaces 138, agent system 135, or mobile network 115. See Ex. 1005, Fig. 9. In other words, Petitioner fails to show Dill teaches web interface 137 interfaces with any devices over any of channels (2)–(4), as would be required by Petitioner’s mapping. In the Petition, Petitioner never clearly (or persuasively) addresses this requirement of the claim. Petitioner does contend that transfer options module 145 is coupled to various devices via interfaces 136–138 and exchanges transaction information (see Pet. 25–26; see also Pet. Reply 10– 11), but that contention misses the mark. The salient question is whether Dill’s web interface 137 (i.e., the claimed “web services communication mechanisms”) interfaces with the different device types over the channels, not whether transfer options module 145 (i.e., the claimed “integration tier”) does so.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,438,196 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,438,196 - PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00044 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3–12, 14–20, 22–25, and 27–29 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“i. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has shown sufficiently at this juncture that the combination of Ogdon and Allen teaches all limitations of claim 1. Petitioner also has put forth a sufficient rationale for combining Allen with Ogdon with a reasonable expectation of success. Based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Ogdon and Allen.” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“must consider “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Although we agree with Petitioner (Pet. 63–64) that Ogdon was not cited during prosecution, we still must consider whether Ogdon is substantially the same as Carmel. We determine that Ogdon is not substantially the same as Carmel because there are differences between them material to the way the Office previously considered the art. See Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Soto, IPR2023-00680, Paper 18 at 6 (Vidal Mar. 28, 2024) (“[P]rior art references are not ‘substantially the same’ when there are differences between them that are material to the Office’s prior consideration of the art.” (citing Wolfspeed, Inc. v. Trustees of Purdue University, IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7–8 (Vidal Mar. 30, 2023)). Both parties agree that the Examiner distinguished Carmel during prosecution because it did not teach streamlets of the same duration. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002, 1270–71); Prelim. Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 1002, 1270–73). In contrast, Petitioner cites Ogdon in the Petition for teaching, inter alia, segments that have “approximately the same presentation duration.” See, e.g., Pet. 27 (quoting Ex. 1004, 2:49–55). For the same reasons discussed above (see supra § II.D.3.f), and based on the present record, we disagree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 38) that this disclosure does not teach streamlets of the same length. As such, we find that Petitioner applies Ogdon in a manner that is distinguishable from the way Carmel was understood by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’138 patent. Thus, we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented, so we need not proceed past the first stage of the Advanced Bionics framework with respect to Ogdon. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Our inquiry begins and ends with the first test pertaining to the field of the endeavor. Patent Owner is correct that the ’138 patent is in the field of video streaming over the internet with shifting of streaming content based on network conditions. See Ex. 1001, 1:31–34. Similarly, Ogdon discloses shifting presentation content that is transmitted over the internet based on network conditions. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 1:9–15. The only potential discrepancy appears to be whether Ogdon’s disclosed presentation content can include streaming video. And Ogdon discloses an example where a presentation version may include “real time or animated video.” Id. at 2:61– 66; see also infra § II.D.3.a (discussing Ogdon’s disclosure of video presentations). We find that Ogdon’s disclosure of transmitting real-time video as part of a presentation is the same as video streaming. Thus, we conclude that Ogdon is analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the ’138 patent. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that Ogdon qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Ogdon’s issue date of December 12, 2000, is more than one year before the earliest effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is April 30, 2004. Ex. 1001, code (60); Ex. 1004, code (45). slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ogdon and Allen to yield this limitation. Ogdon teaches different quality versions of a presentation that may include video (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:8–10, 2:30–66, 13:47–49, 22:44– 47, 24:55), and Allen expressly teaches encoding the same content at bitrates of 56 kbps, 300 kbps, and 600 kbps (see, e.g., Ex. 1005, 12:1–5). Based on these teachings, Petitioner shows sufficiently, on this record, that it would have been obvious to encode streaming video into low, medium, and high quality streams. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67. We also are sufficiently persuaded on this record that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Allen with Ogdon to enable streaming video presentations for a variety of different available bandwidths. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 67; Ex. 1004, code (57). In particular, Ogdon’s teaching of retrieving alternatively sized presentations based on transmission data rates supports Petitioner’s proposed combination with Allen’s teaching of encoding video at different bitrates. See Ex. 1004, code (57) (stating that a greater-sized presentation for a “higher transmission rate” has “corresponding enhanced quality of presentation” compared to a reduced-sized version for a “low transmission data rate”), 22:44–47 (stating that “as the expected amount of time for retrieving one or more presentation elements lengthens, . . . better presentation quality presentation elements may be retrieved (e.g., the presentation quality may be enhanced from limited or no animation to full animation)”). And Petitioner establishes sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan reasonably would have expected success in making the combination, particularly given that Ogdon already contemplates alternative presentations for different transmission rates. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65, 67; Ex. 1004, code (57). Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to Ogdon alone and do not account for Petitioner’s proposed modification based on Allen.3 Such arguments do not show nonobviousness where Petitioner’s obviousness ground is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, to the extent Patent Owner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to modify Ogdon as proposed, it fails to sufficiently explain this contention. For example, we do not read Ogdon to indicate that its presentation versions must be wholly different types of presentation materials, i.e., presentations in different languages or presentations tailored for different audiences. We also do not agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 22–25) that Ogdon fails to teach or suggest video streaming for the same reasons discussed above. See supra §§ II.D.1, II.D.3.a. Thus, based on the present record, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding this limitation are unavailing.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,470,138 - Infineon Technologies AG v. Feinics Amatech TeorantaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00417 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–12, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Takeda-322.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennae used in RFID devices versus developing antennae used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). The Specification of the ’250 patent describes its technical field as relating to a smart card that may comprise an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip with antenna components for operating in contactless modes. Ex. 1001, 1:37–54. The Specification discusses both inductive and capacitive coupling. See, e.g., id. at 3:14–39. Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be at use by various RFID systems. See Ex. 2005, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Thus, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill should be narrowly confined to developing antenna for RFID devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Pet. 7.5” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, for several reasons. Patent Owner first argues that Dr. van der Weide lacks relevant experience to provide opinions through the lens of a person having ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 27–38 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 71). According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with relevant inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Moreover, Petitioner presents evidence that Dr. Van der Weide’s experience exceeds even Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply 22–23 (citations omitted). Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7; Ex. 1004 (van der Weide curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededTerm construed board ownMixed
“appears in independent claims 1 and 18) should be construed as “a component in a booster antenna for coupling with a module antenna connected to an integrated circuit.” PO Resp. 15–16. We determine that it is unnecessary to construe this claim term for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017 (“[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))). As we explain herein, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Takeda-322 renders the recited “coupler coil” obvious even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Section III(G)(2)(b), infra.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“to the extent Takeda-322 does not expressly teach a single wire implementation, such an implementation would have been obvious because it was a known, conventional, technique and because it would lead to obvious and predictable results while avoiding drawbacks of multiple wires. Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–63; Ex. 1012, 3:54–60, 4:26–36, 5:35– 60 (Ayala suggesting use of single wire)). Petitioner further argues, with supporting evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving this implementation. Id. The preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had both reason and a reasonable expectation of success in achieving this implementation, and Patent Owner does not dispute the argument. We, thus, determine that a single-wire embodiment of Takeda-322 would have been obvious.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,033,250 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,033,250 - Linkedin Corporation v. Ebuddy Technologies B.V.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00165 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 6–10 were not shown unpatentable because Eaton and Kim each failed to disclose the claimed array and alternative-title limitations, and the obviousness grounds did not cure those deficiencies.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“alternative” or “alternative title.” Neither party contends that “alternative” or “alternative title” is a term of art with an art recognized meaning. In plain English, “alternative” as an adjective designates something that is another option, another choice. Dictionary.com (accessed June 23, 2022), https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alternative (Ex. 3002) (“affording a choice of two or more things, propositions, or courses of action,” “(of two things, propositions, or courses) mutually exclusive so that if one is chosen the other must be rejected: The alternative possibilities are neutrality and war.”). The specification of the ’179 patent also consistently uses the word “alternative” to mean something in lieu of or in place of another choice. For instance, the ’179 patent describes: Advantageously, data associated with the event can also (or in the alternative) be provided to the title provisioning engine 616. Ex. 1001, 8:15–17 (distinguishing “also” from “alternative”). A given event may cause the title provisioning engine 616 to rewrite the entire title array 618 with title strings associated with the most recent events. Alternatively, a given event may cause the title provisioning engine 616 to append title strings to the end of the title array 618. Id. at 8:24–28 (using “alternative” in mutually exclusive context). slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“During oral hearing, counsel for Petitioner clarified that the index to an array may start from “0” rather than “1” and that the index also need not be a number. Tr. 18:13–19:19. With that clarification, counsel for Patent Owner indicated that there no longer is any dispute with regard to the meaning of “array.” Tr. 61:14–25. Accordingly, we have no need to construe the term “array.” 4. “event” The term “event” is recited in independent claim 1. The specification” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“reproduced above, are “event messages / strings 300 (shaded in green).” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 31). But the cited evidence does not support that assertion. Paragraph 31 of Eaton describes the referenced column simply as “associated event 300.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 31. Further, even if the column stores associated event messages, Petitioner cites nothing to show that the associated messages in server memory column 300 are the event presence notification messages discussed above in the context of limitation 1[ii]. Alternatively, Petitioner relies on Eaton’s Figure 6 embodiment. Pet. 31. Petitioner asserts (id.) that in the Figure 6 embodiment server memory 160 stores an array of event notifications, referencing an annotated version of Eaton’s Figure 6, reproduced below: Figure 6 is a block diagram of an alternate embodiment of a server memory for use within a server of the instant message communication system, and Petitioner has shaded the EVENT AN–NN column green and the words “SERVER MEMORY” red. Ex. 1006 ¶ 19. Petitioner asserts that both the TOPIC N column 540 and the EVENT AN-NN column 670 as the stored event notifications. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 56–58). But the assertion is not supported by the cited evidence. Paragraphs 56–58 of Eaton do not indicate that either topic entries 540 or event entries 670 are the event presence notification messages discussed above in the context of limitation 1[ii]. In its Reply, Petitioner asserts that event presence notification message EPNM “is associated with the character strings labelled Topics [1]- [N], and using ‘Topic N’ as the example, it is tied to ‘Event[s] AN-NN’ (representing the ‘events’ from the plurality of events 180 discussed in Claim 1[i]).” Reply 22. Even assuming that there is an association, Petitioner still has not shown that EPNM is any of Topics [1]-[N] in Figure 6. Similarly, Petitioner has not shown that EPNM is any of Event [1]-[N] in Figure 2.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“’179 Patent as provided above in Ground 1. To the extent that there are arguably any meaningful differences between those claims and Eaton’s disclosures, those differences would have been trivial and obvious modifications to make for a PHOSITA.” Pet. 49. This conclusory assertion of obviousness does not specifically identify any difference between the claimed invention and Eaton, and does not provide any reasoning or rational underpinning to support the assertion. Conclusory assertions of obviousness are insufficient to satisfy Petitioner’s burden of proof. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner asserts that to the extent that Eaton discloses various, “distinct” embodiments, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine Eaton’s teachings into a single system. Pet. 49. Petitioner also asserts that one with ordinary skill in the art “would understand that Eaton discloses possible configurations and/or operations of the same system, and to the extent that it is argued or found otherwise, the functions would have been entirely obvious to combine for [one of ordinary skill in the art] given Eaton’s express disclosures.” Id. It is uncertain what distinct embodiments are referred to by Petitioner. However, even assuming that the disclosures of Eaton’s embodiments, already discussed by Petitioner, are properly combinable, there still remains the deficiencies, discussed above in the alleged anticipation of claim 1 by Eaton, relating to the step of storing the event notification in an array, the step of providing the event notification from the array to a process executed by a processor, and the step of providing an alternative title from the array to the process. Accord Inst. Dec. 57.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 8,402,179 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,402,179 - Infineon Technologies AG v. Feinics Amatech TeorantaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00235 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 over Takeda-322 under §§ 102 and 103, claims 1–6 over Murayama under § 102, and claim 7 over Murayama under §§ 102 and 103.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentDecided for patent owner
“Under the circumstances of this case, we do not agree that adverse judgment with respect to the disclaimed claims is appropriate. Our Rules, provide that a party may request judgment against itself. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Here, Patent Owner is not requesting adverse judgment against itself. While it is true that 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) provides that “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . (2) [c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” (emphasis added), we decline to construe Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer as a request for adverse judgment in this proceeding because Patent Owner does not disclaim all challenged claims and the majority of the challenged claims remain in this trial.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennae used in RFID devices versus developing antennae used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). Petitioner points out that “the claims are not limited to a [Booster Antenna (BA)] operating at any particular frequency range.” Reply 25. In addition, Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be at use by various RFID systems. See Ex. 2005, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Thus, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill should be narrowly confined to developing antenna for RFID devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1– 2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Pet. 87.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, because he “he lacks relevant experience, his testimony runs counter to fundamental principles of the RFID technology disclosed in the ’932 patent, and his testimony evidences a lack of candor.” PO Resp. 46. According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Moreover, Petitioner presents evidence that Dr. Van der Weide’s experience exceeds even Patent 7 We further note that our final determination, on the merits, would be the same even under Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 25–27. Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7; Ex. 1004 (van der Weide curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that “[n]o claim term requires an exact outer boundary construction, because the prior art relied upon herein meets the claim terms under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner proposes constructions for the claim terms “booster antenna,” “card antenna component,” “coupler coil component,” and “extension antenna component.” PO Resp. 25–45. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner also has proposed its own constructions for these terms, despite stating that no claim term requires construction. Id. at 25–26. We address “booster antenna” and “extension antenna” below.8 It is unnecessary to construe “card antenna component” or “coupler coil component” in this Decision 8 Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner belated construes “card body” in Petitioner’s Reply. Sur-Reply 16–18. We do not construe “card body” because this construction is not necessary to resolve this matter. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of either term. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 9,195,932 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,195,932 - PTAB · May 31, 2023 · IPR2023-00171 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7–9, 14, and 20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_ district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (the “Interim Procedure”). The Interim Procedure explains that “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., 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.” Interim Procedure 3 (internal footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020- 01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A). The Interim Procedure explains that such a Sotera stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB . . . . [and] allows the PTAB to review grounds that the parallel district court litigation will not resolve.” Id. at 7–8. In this proceeding, Petitioner stipulates that “it will not pursue an invalidity defense in the parallel district court action based on the same grounds as in this petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Pet. Prelim. Reply 1. Petitioner asserts that its stipulation is the same as the one in Sotera. Id. at 1–2. Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner adopts the identical stipulation from Sotera but argues it “cannot cure the fact that [Fintiv] Factors 2, 3, 5 and 6 all remain heavily in favor of denying institution.” See PO Prelim. Sur-Reply 3. factors help the Board assess the potential for conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts when there is a PTAB proceeding held in parallel to district-court litigation. See Interim Procedure 1–2. But here, Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation ensures the grounds that the Board resolves will differ from those considered in the parallel district-court litigation. See id. at 7–8. This eliminates the potential for conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts. See id. Thus, in light of Petitioner’s stipulation, we decline to deny institution under Fintiv. Id. at 3.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“V. CONCLUSION As explained above, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to at least claim 1 of the ’130 patent. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted with respect to all claims and all grounds of unpatentability raised in the Petition;” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“invention of the ’130 patent “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of wireless communication technology.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 23). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because we are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’130 patent.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Declaration, Exhibit 1002, in part because the Declaration merely copies the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 22. This argument finds support in our recent decision in Xerox. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (August 24, 2022) (precedential). In Xerox, we denied institution and held a declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s conclusory arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning. Although we agree that the Petition and supporting evidence or reasoning. For the reasons explained below, at this stage, we are persuaded that the Petition and Ding Declaration are sufficiently supported by the disclosures from Kwak. The weight given to the Ding Declaration is not dispositive for any disputed issue.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,736,130 - Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01293 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 and 7 are unpatentable under § 103: claims 1 and 2 over Patrick, claim 2 over Patrick and Barrett, claims 3–5 over Patrick and Gringeri, and claim 7 over Patrick and Mahdavi.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts: [a] person of ordinary skill in the field of art (“POSITA”) of the ’098 patent would have been a person with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video transmission systems, or a person with a master’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar field with a specialization in video transmission systems. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55–56). Petitioner further contends that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55–56). Petitioner further asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2004 would have known and had the skills necessary to: (1) “Design or implement video transmission systems and applications in compliance with standards such as TCP/IP, UDP, RTP, ATM, DVB, and ATSC;” (2) “Understand video coding and processing in compliance with standards such as MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and H.26x;” (3) “Implement known techniques for determining available bandwidths between transmitting and receiving systems of media content; and” (4) “Understand common techniques for organizing and” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“construction standard as applied in federal courts in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is generally referred to as the Phillips standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under the Phillips standard, “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (1996)). Petitioner proposes claim constructions for “transmission rate” and “steady-state transmission rate.” See Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not agree with Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions. See PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 20). Patent Owner, however, does not offer alternative proposed claim constructions, but instead asserts these terms should be construed in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings. See id. As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not expressly construe “transmission rate” and “steady-state transmission rate.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“As an initial matter, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s contention that the following Reply argument constitutes an impermissible new argument: “[s]ince [Patent Owner] is unable to dispute paragraph 38 teaches limitations [1b] and [1d] . . . .” Pet. Reply 9; see PO Sur-reply 12–13. Contrary to Patent Owner’s suggestion, we do not understand Petitioner to argue for the first time on Reply that Patrick’s paragraph 38 by itself teaches limitations [1b] and [1d]. Rather, we understand the Reply argument to address the dispute raised by Patent Owner regarding the disclosure of Patrick’s paragraph 38 as applied to limitations [1b] and [1d] in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 9; PO Resp. 38–40, 38 n.7, 52–53 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 50–51, 63–64, 70); Pet. 30–31, 37. Likewise, we do not agree that the portion of the Reply addressing the second sentence of Patrick’s paragraph 38 is a new argument that attempts to buttress the lack of discussion of paragraph 38 in the Petition. See PO Sur-reply 16; Pet. Reply 11. Instead, we find that these Reply arguments constitute a permissible response to Patent Owner’s arguments addressing how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosure of Patrick’s paragraph 38. See PO Resp. 38 n.7 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 50), 52–53 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 63–64, 70; PO Resp. 38 n.7); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”)8 73–74.” slip op. at 28
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“paragraph 38 uses terms consistent with the terms used in the first sentence of paragraph 38 and terms used in paragraphs 31 and 36 to address act 206 of Figure 3. See id. ¶¶ 31, 36, 38. Moreover, the first sentence of paragraph 38 is consistent with Patrick’s paragraph 37 disclosure that network congestion or other restrictions between the server and client (i.e., a reduction of bandwidth between the server and client) may limit the rate of accelerated streaming. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 37 (quoted in Pet. 30–31). We give weight to Dr. Brody’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art “reading Patrick’s disclosure would have understood that [Patrick’s] later disclosure [in paragraphs 33 through 39] provides additional details and teachings relevant to the invention as a whole,” (Pet. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 8)) because it is supported by the aforementioned interrelated teachings of at least Patrick’s paragraphs 31 and 36 through 38. We give minimal weight to Dr. Hayes’s cited supporting testimony regarding the “structure” of Patrick because it is not supported by a sufficient factual basis, and like Patent Owner’s arguments, is inconsistent with Patrick’s disclosure. Accordingly, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, we find: (1) Patrick’s paragraph 38 provides additional detail regarding the disclosures of paragraphs 31 through 36 with respect to act 206 of Figure 3; (2) the disclosures of paragraphs 37 through 39 are not limited to describing the period of accelerated streaming of act 208 of Figure 3; and (3) the corresponding disclosure related to act 206 of Figure 3 is not limited to the description of Patrick’s paragraphs 31 through 36.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 9,402,098 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,402,098
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.