- PTAB · Oct 25, 2023 · IPR2023-00687 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 15–20, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 15–20 are unpatentable over Wilt, Jiao, and Stuttard.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We therefore grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Pedram, applies a definition of the level of ordinary skill from the ITC proceeding. Patent Owner does not contest it. [A] [skilled artisan] would have a bachelor degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in ‘parallel computing or graphics processing including developing, designing, or programming software or hardware for graphics processing or parallel processing units, graphics accelerators[,] or other graphics processing systems,’ with additional education substitution for experience and vice versa. Ex. 1003 ¶ 38 (citing Ex. 1008, 9). We adopt this definition because it is consistent with the ’381 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“1. “associated with” A “scheduling module associated with a second processing unit” in claim 15 is not in a first processor. This meaning is consistent with the ’381 patent prosecution history where Patent Owner argued a prior art scheduling module in the first processing unit with the engines was not “associated with a second processing unit.” See Ex. 1002, 183; see also Ex. 2003, 158–161.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Motivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner’s assertion that PPU 202 has a work distribution unit and front end unit that execute tasks on processing cores 208 treats PPU 202 as a “first processing unit” because each PPU 202 has work distribution unit 210 and front end unit 212 engines as discussed for element 15[d] and processing cores 208 receive and execute tasks from those engines. Pet. 26–28. PPU 202 does not receive or execute tasks. Its engines receive tasks that its cores execute as Petitioner asserts. Id. It is unclear how subsystem 112 is used when each PPU 202 of subsystem 112 discloses elements 15[d] and 15[e]. Wilt’s work distribution unit 210 receives tasks from front end unit 212 and assigns the tasks to each core 208. Ex. 1004, 4:1–23. Petitioner alternatively asserts that units 210, 212, 303 of each PPU 202 are one engine that assigns the tasks to cores 208 on plural PPUs 202. Pet. 27–28.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,854,381 - Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. Ati Technologies UlcInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 25, 2023 · IPR2023-00688 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 7–12 were unpatentable over the asserted § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“institute an inter partes 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 “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’628 patent. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on this record, we adopt Dr. Manocha’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’628 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s purported motivation that the modification would “preserve the image fidelity of the texture” lacks sufficient reasoning and support. Importantly, we fail to see, and Petitioner provides inadequate explanation or support, why adding an additional level of partitioning above the 4x4 and 8x8 blocks would “preserve the image fidelity of the texture” any more than what FXT1 already does. See Pet. 57. We also decline to give weight to Petitioner’s expert declaration, which merely repeats this conclusory reasoning without providing any additional explanation or evidentiary support. 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.”). “Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning.” InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, we find Petitioner’s reasoning and rational underpinning as to why FTX1 would be modified in the manner proposed to be lacking. Accordingly, because we find that Petitioner has failed to account for limitation 7(b), we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 7 would have been obvious in view of FXT1.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The Specification, however, supports Patent Owner’s construction. In the Background section, the Specification consistently uses the term “block” as a division of an image. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:67–2:3 (“The codebook entries are blocks of pixels of some size (typically 2×2 or larger). For each block of pixels in the original texture, an index is stored to the codebook entry that most closely approximates the block.”). Moreover, the Background section describes the prior-art DXTC technique as “a block-based texture compression scheme” that “explicitly stores two 16-bit colors per 4×4 pixel block.” Id. at 2:24–29. The Background section also describes FXT1, which Petitioner asserts in one of its challenges here, as “a competing compression scheme with DXTC,” which “essentially extends DXTC with some additional block types that can be mixed within any given image.” Id. at 2:46–48. The Specification also uses “block” in the same way in its “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments.” Indeed, the Specification states that [T]he present invention further refines block-based image compression techniques such as DXTC with a flexible method for pre-compression partitioning of texture blocks. The pre-compression partitioning enhances image quality by flexibly selecting partitions suitable to the characteristics of the texture block being compressed, rather than adopting the one-size-fits-all approach suggested in other methods. Ex. 1001, 4:52–57; see also id. at 5:66–6:4 (noting “the present invention represents a further refinement of block-based texture compression schemes such as DXTC” and “the basic compression algorithm . . . divides or splits the image up into discrete blocks of pixels”). The Specification goes to reinforce the understanding of the term “block” as a division of the entire image. For example, when discussing the preferred embodiment, the Specification explains As with other block-based texture compression schemes, the original texture is then split or divided into original blocks of pixels according to step 305. Typically, the original block of pixels is a square or rectangular block—e.g., 4×4 or 8×8 pixel. The size of the original block of pixels is variable, and may be selected according to user needs, application demands and/or system capabilities. Id. at 6:20–26; see also id. at 9:12–13 (“[T]he texture is divided into blocks of 8x8 pixels for compression.”). Thus, we determine that the Specification consistently uses the term “block” to indicate a division of an image, not the image itself, which supports Patent Owner’s construction.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,184,628 - PTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00670 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 10–14 under § 103(a) over Gladstone and Salazar, finding a reasonable likelihood that the combination teaches the claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“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 at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)); see id. at 7, 9. The Interim Procedure also explains that such a stipulation (a Sotera stipulation) “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. at 7. Petitioner provides a Sotera stipulation. Paper 9, Attach. A.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“General Plastic does not apply here because Petitioner did not file multiple, staggered petitions “challenging the same patent and same claims” and different petitioners did not challenge the same patent at different times. See Gen. Plastic, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 9–10, 16–17; see also Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). Instead, Petitioner initiated IPR2023-00669 and this proceeding on the same day by filing parallel petitions. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1, 9, 13–14. Thus, these circumstances do not implicate the roadmapping concerns that General Plastic seeks to alleviate. See Gen. Plastic, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16–17.” slip op. at 18
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the circumstances here justify two petitions. See Notice 2–5. As Petitioner asserts, Petitioner “devote[d] a substantial portion” of the 14,000 word-count limit to the potential constructions of claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 under § 112, sixth paragraph, in the Petition. See id. at 3; Pet. 13–28. As Petitioner also asserts, the “presentation of separate petitions” challenging claims 1–6 and 9 in IPR2023-00669 and claims 10–14 in this proceeding “facilitates the Board’s consideration of each challenge.” See Notice 5. Under the circumstances here, conducting two related inter partes reviews will not stress the Board’s finite resources or unduly burden the Board or Patent Owner. In IPR2023-00669 and this proceeding, the prior art and the unpatentability arguments largely overlap. Specifically, Petitioner cites Gladstone and Salazar when arguing the obviousness of each challenged claim in each proceeding and additionally cites Hada in IPR2023-00669 when arguing the obviousness of claim 6. Pet. 39–86; Prelim. Resp. 13–15; IPR2023-00669, Paper 2 (Pet.) at 26–75. Also, as Patent Owner admits, the challenges in each proceeding involve similar unpatentability arguments based on Gladstone and Salazar, e.g., “essentially the same” arguments in “remarkably similar” petitions according to Patent Owner. See Pet. 49–86; Prelim. Resp. 13–15; IPR2023-00669, Paper 2 (Pet.) at 36–69. 6. CONCLUSION CONCERNING DISCRETIONARY DENIAL DUE TO MULTIPLE PETITIONS For the reasons discussed above, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution due to multiple petitions.” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“disclosures in Gladstone and Salazar teach claim 10’s subject matter. See supra §§ IV.D.3(a)–(g). Additionally, Petitioner provides a reason with a rational underpinning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Salazar’s teachings with Gladstone’s teachings in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra § IV.D.3(h). Hence, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 10 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Gladstone and Salazar.” slip op. at 56
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,302,708 - PTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00669 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6 and 9 for all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Cisco would prevail on the asserted obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–6 and 9 in the ’708 patent on all challenges included in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“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 at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)); see id. at 7, 9. The Interim Procedure also” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“factors to consider when deciding whether to exercise discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution based on a follow-on petition: (1) whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; (2) whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it; (3) whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; (4) the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; (5) whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; (6) the finite resources of the Board; and (7) the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review. Gen. Plastic, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 9–10, 16.” slip op. at 17
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“Parallel Petitions Challenging the Same Patent. Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. Two or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary response by the patent owner) may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). In addition, multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases. To date, a substantial majority of patents have been challenged with a single petition. Nonetheless, the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references. . . .” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,302,708 - PTAB · Oct 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00673 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4, 7–14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Pham and Wu.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“based on the related district court matters identified above. Prelim. Resp. 1– 12; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (holding that PTAB has discretion to deny institution in certain circumstances where there are parallel district court proceedings). Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue in the co-pending district court litigation the specific ground asserted in the petition, or any other ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., grounds that could have been raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patent or printed publications)” (Paper 8, Appendix A at 2), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Reviewing Petitioner’s analysis of claim 1, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Pham and Wu. The three remaining grounds are also based on a similar combination of Pham and Wu, and add one or more references to address features in dependent claims. As mentioned above, Patent Owner has not argued the merits of the case at this time. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons given above, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Pham and Wu. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review on all challenged claims and grounds. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art: would have a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related discipline, and 3–4 years of experience in computer networking with an emphasis on packet processing systems including traffic monitoring, inspection, and encryption/decryption systems. More experience could compensate for less formal education and vice versa. Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner did not offer a level of ordinary skill in the art in its preliminary response. We adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision, which appears consistent with the level of disclosure provided in the ’436 patent and the prior art cited.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Neither party offers any claim constructions, nor do we see a need to construe any terms in order to make this 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 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,685,436 - PTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00568 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 8–15, 19, and 20, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine that the information presented sufficiently supports, for purposes of institution, Petitioner’s assertions that the combination of IMU and Okabe teaches each of the limitations of claim 1. We further determine that Petitioner provides an adequate reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of IMU and Okabe in the manner asserted by Petitioner, with a reasonable expectation of success. We therefore determine Petitioner has met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of IMU and Okabe.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“determine that the information presented sufficiently supports, for purposes of institution, Petitioner’s assertions that the combination of IMU and Okabe teaches each of the limitations of claim 1. We further determine that Petitioner provides an adequate reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of IMU and Okabe in the manner asserted by Petitioner, with a reasonable expectation of success. We therefore determine Petitioner has met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of IMU and Okabe.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least one 1–2 years of experience in image processing and animation,” and “[l]ess education could have been compensated with more experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–24). Petitioner adds that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have also been familiar with existing systems for image processing and animation and understood how to implement such systems.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–24). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,182,641 - Lightricks Ltd. v. Plotagraph, Inc. And Sascha ConnellyInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00569 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted AEM, IMU-Okabe, or IMU-Okabe-Li ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least one 1–2 years of experience in image processing and animation,” and “[l]ess education could have been compensated with more experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29). Petitioner adds that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have also been familiar with existing systems for image processing and animation and understood how to implement such systems.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46). Patent Owner indicates that it proposes “construction for certain claim language below,” but it does not actually identify any claim language for construction, let alone provide any constructions. Prelim. Resp. 16–17. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“First, the disclosure of AEM that Petitioner relies on for teaching selecting certain pixels to be transparent or nontransparent pertains to “compositing,” i.e., creating a composite image from multiple images. Ex. 1003, 315–16. AEM states specifically: “To create a composite from multiple images, you can make parts of one or more of the images transparent so that other images can show through.” Id. at 315. Thus, each pixel in the composite image is either transparent or nontransparent such that every pixel is “selected” under Petitioner’s usage of the term “selecting.” The possibility that some of these pixels, in theory, could extend along a non-linear motion path of a Deform pin is mere happenstance—we are not directed to any disclosure in AEM of actually selecting a set of pixels (either transparent or nontransparent) that extend along a non-linear motion path. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a claim limitation that requires contiguity). We are not persuaded on the record before us that AEM’s disclosure of designating pixels as transparent or nontransparent satisfies selecting a first set of pixels extending along a non-linear pathway.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,301,119 - PTAB · Sep 26, 2023 · IPR2023-00537 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–12, 14, and 15 on all petitioned challenges, finding a reasonable likelihood that Silva renders them obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“C. Analysis The Interim Procedure explains that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)); see id. at 7, 9. The Interim Procedure also explains that such a stipulation (a Sotera stipulation) “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. at 7. Petitioner provides a Sotera stipulation. Paper 7, Attach. A.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–12, 14, and 15 in the ’630 patent on all challenges included in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the current record and for purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’630 patent as well as the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on the current record, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. “[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,916,630 - PTAB · Sep 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00391 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Williams and Pugel would have motivated a skilled artisan to make the claimed combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“4. Summary We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Williams and Pugel to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that at least one claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Williams and Pugel.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contends that the outcome of this proceeding is determined by the level of ordinary skill in the art. We apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art except that we delete the qualifier “at least” which renders the level of skill ambiguous and may encompass levels of skill beyond ordinary. We consider Petitioner’s proposed level of skill to be consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’576 patent and the prior art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We also consider the proposed level of skill to be reflective of the education and experience a person of ordinary skill would have had.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Given that no claim terms are in controversy, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary. 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))). Accordingly, we construe the claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“digitization earlier in Williams’s system by locating an ADC at its front end. However, as Pugel shows, it is not simply a matter of moving an ADC earlier in the processing, because the ADC requires Pugel’s analog processing section 110 including AGC 112 (optional), bandpass filter 114, amplifier 116, and AGC 118. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 16–18. Petitioner does not adequately address the fact that the ADC requires this pre-processing section to filter out noise over the entire broadband signal, which adds complexity and expense to the system, in determining whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references at the time of the invention. See Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“a reasonable fact finder could have found these tradeoffs to yield an unappetizing combination); Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Board weighed competing evidence regarding the relevant tradeoffs and concluded that the combination would negate a key benefit of one of the references which would have outweighed any reason to combine). We also agree with Patent Owner that substituting digital components for analog ones is not as straightforward as Petitioner alleges. Prelim. Resp. 48; Pet. 41. According to Petitioner, Williams performs the tuning (i.e., channel selection), frequency translating, and signal combining in the analog domain. Petitioner contends that tuning and frequency translating could be performed in the digital domain using digital equivalents of Williams’s analog components. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–119). However, Petitioner does not identify adequately what these digital equivalents are and whether they were available at the time of the ’576 patent. Petitioner further contends that signal combining could be accomplished by converting signals to analog before summing at Williams’s summer 68, or by summing the signals in the digital domain and converting the output of summer 68 to analog. Pet. 41. Petitioner does not address the complexity or costs associated with additional DACs or a digital combiner in its proposed combination and whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references in light of these disadvantages. And Patent Owner rightly notes that Pugel does not disclose a digital combiner.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,130,576 - PTAB · Sep 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00693 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5, 9–10, 12–17, and 23–25 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). In addition, a petition for inter partes review may be considered only if “the petitioner provides copies of any of the documents required under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) to the patent owner or, if applicable, the designated representative of the patent owner.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(5). Our rules expand on this service requirement stating that “[s]ervice may be by Priority Mail Express® or by means at least as fast and reliable as Priority Mail Express®.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(b).2 slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.§ 103(a) over Zha and POSITA’s knowledge. Pet. 2 (Ground 1). Having considered the arguments and evidence before us, 7 US 2014/0006485 A1, filed May 22, 2013, published January 2, 2014 (Tsushima, “Ex. 1010”). 8 US 9,591,083 B1, filed November 23, 2005, issued March 7, 2017 (“Gumbula,” Ex. 1011). 9 US 2012/0017236 A1, filed July 13, 2010, published January 19, 2012 (“Stafford,” Ex. 1012). 10 US 2015/0011318 A1, filed Nov. 27, 2012, published January 8, 2015 (“Takahashi,” Ex. 1007). we determine that the record establishes a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail on this asserted ground of patentability.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’376 patent would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering or computer science or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two years of professional experience in the field of computer and/or network design and security or other relevant industry experience.” Pet. 5. For the purposes of this proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’376 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits that, for the purposes of institution, “[t]erms should be given their plain meaning.” Pet. 5. We determine that at the present time, no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,064,376
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.