- Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 10, 2025 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as obvious: claim 1 over Cho, Aaron, and Carpenter; claim 2 over those references and de Geer; claim 3 over Cho and Aaron; and claim 4 over Cho, Aaron, and de …
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“application are similar, as indicated by the redline comparison of two provided as Exhibit 1015. Critically, however, the “Summary of the Invention” sections are completely different. Id. at 2–4. The question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood with reasonable clarity, without the benefit of the Summary added for the ’286 patent/’674 application, that the ՚030 application describes a smart telephone that executes coded instructions to “convert the analog variable voltage audio signal received at the microphone port to the transaction data as digital data.”” slip op. at 43
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Here, although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. The evidence indicates that the claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data B1-Bn” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“As discussed above in Section II.C, we construe the term “transaction data” as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. Again, we emphasize that claim 1 requires that the transaction data is accepted by the card reader from an output interface of the transaction card. Cho provides that card reader 230 reads a digital signal that includes account information of card 130 whereby the account information “may include at least one of an account number, a card expiration data, etc.” Ex. 1005, 5:54–58. We further agree with Petitioner that to the extent “transaction data” is for the purpose of conducting banking transactions, Cho’s account data of a credit card number and expiration date can perform that purpose. Patent Owner’s arguments that the transaction data cannot be “static” and that claim 1 requires “processing actual transaction-specific data” are not commensurate with the scope of the claim 1. The claim does not recite any limitations that the transaction data be dynamic or “not static,” nor does it recite any processing of the transaction data outside of using it to “facilitate transactions.” Petitioner has shown that Cho teaches the claimed transaction data.” slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 9,679,286 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,286 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Ak Meeting IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 5, 2024 · IPR2022-01142 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 8 are anticipated by and obvious over Roy; claims 1–14 are obvious over Simonoff and Naef; and the listed claims are anticipated by and obvious over Chang.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have been a person having, as of the priority date of the ’124 Patent: (1) at least an undergraduate degree in computer science or closely-related field, or similar advanced post-graduate education; and (2) 1–2 years of experience related to multi-user collaboration software. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30).10 Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response, but Patent Owner previously stated in its Preliminary Response that it “adopt[s] Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’124 Patent as well as the asserted prior art.” See generally Resp.; Prelim. Resp. 5. We accept Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’124 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We conclude, in agreement with Petitioner, that Mr. Landers is not evidenced to have ordinary skill in the art, as such has been defined above in Section II.B of this Decision, because he appears to have neither the requisite education (he is not evidenced to have a degree in computer science or a closely related field) nor experience (he is not evidenced to have experience in multi-user collaboration software). See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 5–7, Attachment A; see also Hr’g Tr. 23:5–25:2 (Patent Owner, given the opportunity to identify any evidence of record supporting that Mr. Landers has ordinary skill in the art, identified none). There is no argument by Patent Owner to the contrary. For the reasons above, we give no weight to the testimony presented in the Declarations of Mr. Sunatori and Mr. Landers as to the claim construction, anticipation, and obviousness issues discussed below. D.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner states, “no construction is necessary, as the claims are obvious under any reasonable construction.” Pet. 7. This statement aligns with the testimony of Dr. Terveen. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24 (“Counsel has not instructed me to apply a construction of the claims notwithstanding their ordinary meaning. Therefore, I have applied the meaning of the claim terms of the Challenged Claims that is generally consistent with their ordinary and customary meaning, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood them in the context of the ’124 Patent at the time of the alleged invention.”). Moreover, Petitioner again stated at the final hearing that, “there are no claim construction disputes, at least none explicitly.” Hr’g Tr. 11:21–24. Similarly, Patent Owner states that “[n]o formal claim constructions are necessary because ‘claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Resp. 4 (quoting Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Therefore, we also do not expressly construe any claim language. slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on the evidence of record, we find that the annotated Roy Figure 4B, above, shows how Roy teaches: (1) user input at a client computer, the user input representing content to be shared, such as game plays, and generating messages defining that content, (2) the content being sent to a server, (3) and the server then outputting related messages to all the networked client computers (including the originating computer) so that (4) shared content (e.g., the game play) is displayed over common content (e.g., a game field) at all networked computers (including the originating computer). The above cited portions of Roy, as explained by Dr. Terveen, disclose a central server architecture for the networking of, and sharing common and user-generated content amongst, client computers, and the inherent latency involved in transmission of messages over such an architecture. See Pet. 10–23; Ex. 1001, 1:60–67, 47:44–48, 49:2–7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–60; Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1:26–48, 1:53–56, 2:1–6, 3:16–56, 3:66–4:1, 4:6–29, 4:44–54, 5:17–6:14, 7:50–52, Figs. 1, 4B, 5A, 5B; Ex. 1020; Ex. 1021. Moreover, to the extent any claim element is not expressly disclosed in Roy, Petitioner has shown that it would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that displaying shared content over common content on networked computers, where users are collaborating or playing a game, where changes are made to the common view efficiently so that only changes are messaged as rendering commands rather than re-rendering the entire “game world” would provide the benefit of preserving bandwidth consumption. Pet. 20–21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 58.” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 10,963,124 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,963,124
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.