• Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00067 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–23 because the cited art did not teach or suggest creating the claimed fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent is unpatentable. We therefore do not institute trial on any challenged claims or grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,106,697
• Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01270 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–26 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented and the evidence of record, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–26 of the ’378 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby do not institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’378 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA or POSITA) at the time of the invention of the ’378 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with web programming and search engine systems[; m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–36) (“Patent Owner and its expert apply this definition.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art 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

    “Based on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “(3) Discussion We observe first that “[Halevy’s] first step in processing a web source is to locate the forms in the source and to extract the text corresponding to the fields in the form.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53. According to Halevy, the “web source is subsequently classified into the ontology classes.” Id. ¶ 55. Then, the “forms on the page are classified into the classes in the ontology.” Id. ¶ 57 (emphasis added). Halevy explains that this classification is used to predict what kinds of objects are in the databases queried by the form. Id. For “Schema Matching,” Halevy discloses “a mapping between the fields in the form and the SO-properties of the SO-classes[.]” Id. ¶¶ 61–62. Missing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that a “plurality of computer-readable field identifiers” are mapped “to one another” as required by claim 1. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Fox, testifies that “[t]he ‘SO-classes’ are identified for each form and used to map the fields in the form (i.e., “the plurality of computer-readable field identifiers”) to one another using “SOproperties,” as shown . . . in annotated Figure 3.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 39–40, 45, 49, 62, 67). Yet, those cited portions of Halevy do not support Dr. Fox’s testimony. As Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Sam Malek, explains: the language highlighted by Petitioner in Figure 3 does not actually show that “[t]he ‘SO-classes’ are . . . used to map the fields in the form . . . to one another using ‘SO-properties,’” as he contends. Id. Rather, the language in Figure 3 that Dr. Fox has highlighted merely shows that, for any given form, there is “mapping between fields” of that form and “class properties.” EX1006, Fig. 3. In other words, fields in a form are mapped to class properties. Figure 3 does not show any mapping of fields to each other, as Dr. Fox argues.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,633,378
• Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · PGR2024-00047 · APJ Steven M Amundson · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any of claims 1–7 was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “to institute a post-grant review. We may not institute a post-grant review unless we determine that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2024).” slip op. at 2

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as encompassing a” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 26

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not shown unpatentable

    “2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 36

  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,830,546
• Apple Inc. v. S.M.R Innovations Ltd And Y.M.R Tech LtdInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01048 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all four grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “We begin our analysis with independent claim 1. Considering these factors, we preliminarily determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Zhang, Fillebrown, and Pasanen, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted

    “Petitioner argues that limitation 1c is taught by the combination of Zhang with Fillebrown. Pet. 18. Petitioner identifies Zhang’s teaching of transmitting commands and media content from the mobile device to helper servers via a wireless network, WLAN. Pet. 16–18 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:25– 60, 4:1–8, 4:32–50, 7:1–14, 8:13–22; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103, 104, 114–118). Acknowledging that Zhang does not expressly teach an intermediate routing device, Petitioner identifies Fillebrown’s intermediate wireless router (wireless router 120) for providing network range extension by amplifying routed signals. Id. at 19–22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 16, 34, 49, 51, 57, 61). Petitioner contends a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Zhang to route data via an intermediate wireless router pursuant to Fillebrown to provide network range extension, and that such a modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang and Fillebrown teach the same network setup (i.e., WLAN using a wireless protocol/standard such as IEEE 802.11 or Home RF). Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109–111)” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “The parties do not propose any express claim construction. Pet. 4; see generally Prelim Resp. We also determine that no express claim construction is necessary for our Decision, apart from that discussed in our below analysis. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms in controversy must 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)).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We preliminarily disagree with Patent Owner. Although the claim lists step 1b before step 1d, method steps are not ordinarily construed to require a specific order of performance unless the claims or Specification directly or implicitly require that specific order. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Nothing in the express claim language precludes performing step 1d before step 1b, as in Zhang. For example, the claim does not contain temporal terms, like “then” or “next,” nor does the claim otherwise specify that step 1b must precede step 1d. Although Patent Owner points out that a term of step 1d (i.e., the one more available devices) derives antecedent basis from text in step 1b (i.e., one more available devices), this alone does not directly or implicitly require performing step 1b before step 1d. Prelim Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1002, 240, ’648 patent prosecution history). Nor does the Specification require performing the step of identifying devices as available before the step of wirelessly signaling those devices or even that the steps be mutually exclusive. For example, there are no statements that this step order is important, nor disclaimer of any other order, nor any prosecution history indicating a surrender of any other order. Moreover, according to the Specification, announcer 30, which is the component that identifies devices as available prior to the wirelessly signaling, is only “preferably provided.” Ex. 1001, 7:28–31. Even assuming Patent Owner were correct that step 1b must precede step 1d, Patent Owner’s position that device(s) must be identified as available does not appear to be commensurate with the claims. According to its plain meaning, limitation 1b does not appear to require identifying devices as available; the claim merely requires identifying “available devices.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (rejecting arguments “not based on limitations appearing in the claims”). In other words, the claim does not appear to require identifying (i.e., determining) whether devices are available but merely requires identifying devices that happen to be available. According to our preliminary understanding, Zhang’s mobile device 1) discovers (identifies) connected available and unavailable helper servers, and then 2) sends (wirelessly signals) service requests to compatible available and unavailable helper servers. Ex. 1004, 3:44–4:8, 6:51–7:13. Thus, Zhang identifies and then wirelessly signals available devices (Zhang also identifies and then wirelessly signals unavailable devices). As such, we preliminary determine that Zhang meets the claim language “identifying one or more available devices” and “wirelessly signaling the one or more available devices.”” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,547,648
• Apple Inc. v. S.M.R Innovations Ltd And Y.M.R Tech LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01047 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition 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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 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.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, deny Petitioner’s request to institute inter partes review of the challenged claims on the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is similar to Petitioner’s definition with some variation in the amount of education and specificity as to the experience required. As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. We note, however, that our determination in this proceeding would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner “applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” and does not propose construction of any claim term. Pet. 4. Patent Owner also does not propose construction of any claim term. See generally, Prelim. Resp. Based on the record before us, we see no need for express construction of any term for the purposes of this Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “feature of scanning a wireless communication network by the mobile device receiving the streaming data for re-routing, to identify devices connected to the wireless network, are identified as capable to handle the routed media content.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1002, 237–238). Thus, we understand the recited language to require scanning to find devices that have been identified as compatible, not just scanning to find devices and later determining which of those devices, if any, are compatible. Zhang, on the other hand, scans to find devices in the network, but that scan does not seek out devices identified as compatible. Specifically, Zhang scans to find its “helper environment” which is composed of “devices around them.” Ex. 1004, code (57); see also id. 2:16–20. The first step of Zhang’s process is to find “a local device [that] offers helper service.” Id. at 3:62–63. In the next step, Zhang then interrogates the device it scanned for in order to find out whether that device offers the necessary service. Id. at 3:63–4:5. In other words, Zhang is not scanning for compatible devices, but rather it is scanning for any device around it and then asking whether the device provides the necessary service. We find this to be insufficient because the claim is not merely seeking to identify a compatible device, but rather it is scanning “to identify a plurality of devices, identified as compatible to handle said media content.” Thus, for these claims it is not enough that the network be scanned for devices; instead, the network must be scanned for devices “identified as compatible.” The inclusion of Rofheart does not address this issue. Rofheart is relied upon to teach “that a local device identifies and connects with a plurality of remote devices.” Pet. 29. According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Rofheart’s teaching to improve Zhang by adding “the benefit of providing users control to select one or more of a plurality of devices, rather than always connecting to the first identified available compatible device, as taught by Zhang.” Id. As such, neither of the cited references addresses the recited scanning for devices identified as compatible.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,699,223
• Apple Inc. v. S.M.R. Innovations Ltd And Y.M.R. Tech LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01049 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 22–24 would have been obvious over Chihara, BluetoothSpec, Everett, and Chang.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Thus, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that Chihara, in view of BluetoothSpec and the other references, teaches the “announcer device” limitation. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that it would be likely to prevail if we instituted an inter partes review. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown that there is a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’866 patent is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny the Petition. ORDER It is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “Although Petitioner doesn’t promote it in its Petition, we agree with Petitioner’s undisputed contention that the ordinary and customary meaning of the “announcer device” limitation is that the “streaming device is receiving rerouted data from surrounding media handling devices, rather than rerouting data to surrounding media handling devices.” Pet. 19–20. This is in accord with the specification of the ’866 patent which states that “[t]he announcer device 30 is responsible for announcing to the environment the availability of a current device for accepting routed media.” Ex. 1038, 7:22– 24 (emphasis added). The construction that Petitioner does promote, based on its interpretation of Patent Owner’s arguments in the parallel litigation, departs from the term’s ordinary meaning, yet Petitioner has presented no 7 Petitioner also argues that we should construe the term media transformer as a means-plus-function limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pet. 7–11. We need not construe this term to reach our decision not to institute trial in this proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). evidence to justify such a departure. For example, Petitioner has not shown that the patent applicant has plainly acted as lexicographer for the term, or has plainly disavowed the full scope of the term. See Thorner v. Sony, 669 F.3d at 1365; Multiform Desiccants v. Medzam, 133 F.3d at 1477. We are aware of no evidentiary basis for Petitioner’s proposed construction in the specification or prosecution history of the ’866 patent. To the extent, if any, that Patent Owner may have argued in the parallel district court proceeding for a departure from the term’s ordinary meaning, we find no clear disavowal of the term’s scope, particularly in light of Patent Owner’s ultimate argument that the term should have its “[p]lain meaning.” Ex. 2008, 2.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “In light of our disagreement with Petitioner’s proposed claim- construction, we do not find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that Chihara teaches the “announcer limitation,” either alone or in light of BluetoothSpec. Although Petitioner shows that Chihara’s phone 11B announces its availability for pairing with nearby Bluetooth-compatible devices, Petitioner does not argue that phone 11B indicates availability to receive any rerouted data from either headset 13 or watch 12B. To the extent that phone 11B receives streaming or media data for rerouting, it appears to receive it from a mobile or fixed communication network, not from any surrounding Bluetooth devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 79 (phone 11B receives video and audio data via “a fixed telephone network or another mobile telephone set accommodated in a mobile communication network,” and transmits that streaming data to watch 12B and headset 13), 53–54 (calls arrive via mobile telephone antenna 26, which are then processed and transmitted via Bluetooth antenna 21 to watch 12). Regarding the bidirectional communication between phone 11B and headset 13 or watch 12B, Petitioner has not pointed to any evidence that the data sent from watch 12B or headset 13 to phone 11B includes rerouted streaming data. Similarly, Petitioner’s contention that Chihara’s phone 11B, in light of BluetoothSpec, indicates its availability (e.g., that the phone is “powered on” and transmits signals to discover nearby devices) fails to meet the plain language of claim 22, which requires the streaming device (phone 11B) to indicate its availability to receive streaming data rerouted from the surrounding devices (headset 13 or watch 12B). Thus, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that Chihara, in view of BluetoothSpec and the other references, teaches the “announcer device” limitation. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that it would be likely to prevail if we instituted an inter partes review.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,711,866
• ROKU, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2024-01025 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 100–109 and 111 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation by Russ and obviousness over Russ with Robert or Eskicioglu.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim in the ’236 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 100–109 and 111 on all grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).1” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “1 Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences. Paper 3. Petitioner states that it filed three parallel IPR petitions challenging three different claim sets of the ’236 patent “solely for word count purposes that preclude all claims from being challenged in [a] single petition,” “there is no duplicative overlap of the same claims across petitions,” and there is a “need to set” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “someone having “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately two or more years of experience in multi-media content distribution and management. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed definition for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Malek Dec. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38).7” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “on claim construction and disregard everything else.8 The parties direct our attention in particular to the proper construction of an “independent” second root of trust in context of the recited claim limitation: “a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses a second root of trust which is independent of and different than the first root of trust.” We refer to this disputed claim limitation hereafter as the “independent authentication” limitation.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,291,236
• Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View TechnologiesInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00716 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not explain with particularity how the cited references taught the challenged claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “petitioner is master of its complaint.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 363 (2018). As such, Petitioner has the responsibility to make plain its challenges to the disputed claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). The Petition does not make clear Petitioner’s theory of the case. It is not the Board’s responsibility to weave together Petitioner’s evidence into a cohesive case. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (stating that Petitioner “must include” a full statement supporting its challenge “including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”); see also Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Noting that a party’s burden “cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence.”).” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “a bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent educational background, or at least five years of industry experience in software development. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its papers. See generally Prelim. Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Based on the record before us, we see no need for express construction of any term for the purposes of this Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”).” slip op. at 7

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner. As the Supreme Court has noted, “the petitioner is master of its complaint.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 363 (2018). As such, Petitioner has the responsibility to make plain its challenges to the disputed claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). The Petition does not make clear Petitioner’s theory of the case. It is not the Board’s responsibility to weave together Petitioner’s evidence into a cohesive case. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (stating that Petitioner “must include” a full statement supporting its challenge “including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”); see also Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Noting that a party’s burden “cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence.”).” slip op. at 13

  Claim constructioncites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,671,648
• Netflix, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00628 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: claims 1–4 and 8–11 as anticipated by Mehta, and claims 1–14 as obvious over Mehta and Schläpfer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “We construe only those claim terms that require analysis to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that no claim terms require specific construction to resolve the unpatentability issues presented in the Petition. Pet. 23; PO Resp. 10–11. We agree and do not construe any terms.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Analysis We agree with Petitioner. Mehta discloses storing “functionally equivalent programs having the same name that are capable of running on multiple kinds of devices that even may be written using different languages.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 98. Mr. Wechselberger testifies that this disclosure shows that Mehta’s “MAS receives, stores and supports functionally equivalent programs capable of running on multiple devices because each program corresponds to a different device having different device capabilities (e.g., written using different languages).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 66. This testimony is consistent with that of Dr. Goodrich, who testifies that “each application has a single version made for a particular device type.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 66. Dr. Goodrich later testifies that paragraph 98 of Mehta describes that there could be two functionally equivalent programs with the same name that are compatible with a single user’s computer. Id. at ¶ 88; see PO Resp. 31–32 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 87–88). We do not credit this later testimony, because it is inconsistent with Dr. Goodrich’s earlier testimony that “each application,” or program of Mehta, is “made for a particular device type.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 66. We agree with Mr. Wechselberger and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have understood that Mehta’s disclosure of functionally equivalent programs having the same name that are capable of running on multiple kinds of devices means that each program corresponds to a different device having different capabilities. Further, Mehta discloses that “the MAS only lists those applications that are supported by the subscriber’s device. This allows the subscriber to avoid the problem of having to explicitly select a compatible application.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 117; see Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75, 77). Mr. Wechselberger testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have understood this disclosure to mean that the MAS provides the subscriber with only a single subscriber-appropriate version that will work for the subscriber. Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. Although Patent Owner contends that Mehta is silent on whether only a single description would be provided if there were multiple implementations (PO Sur-Reply 10–11), we agree with Mr. Wechselberger and find that when multiple implementations have the same name, each implementation corresponds to a different device, and therefore, the MAS would only present to the subscriber the one implementation that works with the subscriber’s device. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66, 75, 77.” slip op. at 28

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “piece of content, while the versions of Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs are different implementations.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 39. Dr. Goodrich, in his deposition, when asked if “one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’790 patent would also understand that Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Mac are also functionally equivalent, correct?” answered “Yes . . . . But they would be even stronger than simply functionally equivalent. They would be different implementations of the same product.” Ex. 1029, 43:14–24. However, later in his deposition, Dr. Goodrich testifies that Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Mac are separate applications, not different implementations of the same application. Ex. 1029, 48:1–20. We disagree with this later testimony. Neither Dr. Goodrich nor Patent Owner persuasively explains why Dr. Goodrich changed his unambiguous position from both his declaration and his earlier deposition testimony. For example, Dr. Goodrich testifies in his deposition that “for the Lion King example, a .MP3 and a .MOV are different implementations of the same product. They’re also functionally equivalent, but functionally equivalent is broader.” Ex. 1029, 45:7–11. Dr. Goodrich continues, “when Mehta is disclosing functionally equivalent, it is not referring to it as different implementations of the same product. Instead, it’s [describing] how to disambiguate [applications] not clustered in terms of implementations . . . based on other metadata.” Id. at 45:14–21. This explanation is unpersuasive because it is inconsistent with Dr. Goodrich’s declaration testimony, in which Dr. Goodrich explicitly testifies that the different versions of Lion King, as well as the different versions of Microsoft Word, are different implementations of the same product. Ex. 2020 ¶ 39. Specifically, in his declaration, Dr. Goodrich testifies that the “various versions of Lion King (such as an .mp3 file or an .mov file) are the implementations of the Lion King. For another example, . . . the versions of Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs are different implementations.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 39. Dr. Goodrich testifies again that “Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs” are “multiple implementations of an individual item of digital content.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 70. Further, the reason given in the explanation in his deposition, that Mehta needs to disambiguate applications that are not clustered in terms of implementations based on other metadata, would also apply to the different versions of Lion King, yet Dr. Goodrich consistently testifies that these different versions are different implementations, both in his declaration and in his deposition. Id.; Ex. 1029, 45:7–10. Petitioner contends, and we agree, that the inconsistent testimony of Dr. Goodrich appears to be an attempt to cure Patent Owner’s and Dr. Goodrich’s incomplete analysis of Mehta’s disclosure. See Reply 7–8. In particular, the Petition quotes Mehta’s disclosure that the MAS stores “functionally equivalent programs having the same name that are capable of running on multiple kinds of devices that even may be written using different languages.” Pet. 28 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 98). Dr. Goodrich addresses this disclosure by explaining that two applications, such as Microsoft Word and Apple Pages, are functionally equivalent but are two different applications, not multiple implementations of a single application. Ex. 2020 ¶ 70. In this analysis, Dr. Goodrich does not address the full disclosure of Mehta, which describes that the “functionally equivalent programs hav[e] the same name” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 98), such as Dr. Goodrich’s example of Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs. See id. Thus, although Dr. Goodrich is correct in testifying that some functionally equivalent programs, such as Microsoft Word and Apple Pages, are not different implementations of an item of digital content, he is also correct in testifying that “Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs” are “multiple implementations of an individual item of digital content.” Id. Yet Dr. Goodrich does not identify any difference between the multiple implementations of Microsoft Word and the functionally equivalent programs having the same name as described by Mehta.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,233,790 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,233,790
• Netflix, Inc. v. VL Collective IP LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00630 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, and 22 are anticipated by Cassin; all claims are also obvious over Cassin and Huston and over Huston.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “We construe only those claim terms that require analysis to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require specific construction to resolve the unpatentability issues presented” in the Petition. Pet. 15–16. Similarly, Patent Owner contends that “no express construction of any term is required.” PO Resp. 18. For purposes of this decision, we do not construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “is included in the indication. See PO Resp. 40. However, the ’559 patent does not describe what is included in the claimed “listing.” Rather, throughout the disclosure of the ’559 patent, the phrase “the listing of one or more pieces of content stored in memory” or a variation thereof is repeated without any further elaboration. Ex. 1001, 3:13–15, 3:26–36, 12:22–26, 12:50–52, 13:29–30. For example, the Specification does not disclose that the listing of one piece of content includes the title of the piece of content, nor an identification number of the piece of content, nor any other information about the piece of content. The disclosed listing is no more than an item of information that indicates that a specific piece of content is stored in the memory of the terminal. Therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim term “a listing of one . . . piece[] of content stored in the memory,” read in light of the Specification of the ’559 patent, encompasses an item of information that indicates that a specific piece of content is stored in the memory of the terminal. We agree with Petitioner and find that Cassin’s indication that the client currently has the media content item describes an item of information that indicates that a piece of content is stored in the memory of the terminal. Therefore, Cassin’s indication that the client currently has the media item describes “a listing of one . . . piece[] of content stored in the memory” as claimed.” slip op. at 33

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Analysis We agree with Petitioner and find that Cassin’s offer to download an item describes “a response . . . that instructs the terminal to perform one or more actions” as claimed. Reply 11 (citing Pet. 25–26), 13–14. Cassin discloses that the server uses the user information received from the client to query a database in the server for a list of content to which the user is entitled. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 162, 164. Cassin discloses that the server offers an item from the list to the client for downloading. Id. ¶ 163 (The server offers every item on the list), ¶ 164 (The server attempts to send an item on the list). Cassin discloses that the client checks to see if it already has the item. Id. ¶¶ 163, 164. If the client has the item, the client refuses the download offer. Id. If the client does not have the item, the client accepts the download of the item and stores the item in its content repository. Id. Thus, the client responds to the offer to download an item from the server by (a) checking to see if it has the offered item, and (b) either refusing the download if the client has the item or accepting the download if the client does not have the item. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner and find that “when the server offers a media item for the client to download, the server is ‘instructing the terminal to perform one or more actions to thereby control the flow of content.’” Reply 11 (citing Pet. 25–26). We agree with Petitioner that in response to the server’s offer, “the client will either ‘refuse the download’ (if it has the content) or ‘accepts the download of the media content item from the server and stores the media content in the local content repository’ (if the client does not have the content).” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 163). We agree with Petitioner and find that by checking to see if it has the item, and “by refusing or accepting the download offer, the client is doing ‘something to control the flow of content’ in response to the server’s instruction.” Id. (quoting PO Resp. 23). We disagree with Patent Owner’s contentions to the contrary. In particular, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the server’s offer “has not instructed the client to do anything—the client takes action based on other factors (whether or not it already has the media content item).” PO Sur-Reply 3; see PO Resp. 31–32; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 91–93. We find that the client performs the actions of checking to see if it already has the item and, depending on whether it has the item, either accepting or refusing the offer, in response to receiving the offer from the server. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 163, 164; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–75. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the server’s offer instructs the client to (a) determine whether the client has the item and (b) depending on whether the client has the item, either accept or refuse the offer, which describes “instructing the terminal to perform one or more actions to thereby control the flow of content” as claimed. We further find that, because the offered item is from the server’s list which was determined using information from the user and information from the server’s database, the offer to download the item describes “a response to the content status . . . based upon the terminal status information and the server status information” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,440,559 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,440,559

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.