- PTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01310 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 and all four asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“a petition that presents the same or substantially the same art or arguments as were previously presented to the Office. To evaluate arguments for discretionary denial under § 325(d), the Board uses a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties have not addressed whether the differences in these definitions impact the unpatentability analysis before us. We preliminarily adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which is more specific and appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented, but on the present record we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“Petitioner argues that “a POSA would have understood a ‘socket’ to be a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first event information is provided to a VCD [viewer client device].” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 170). Thus, Petitioner argues, an “event socket” is “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to a VCD.” Id. At this time, Petitioner’s proposed constructions of “socket” and “event socket” (Pet. 26) are not disputed by Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 8; see id. at 52–53 (using Petitioner’s proposed construction). At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, we use Petitioner’s proposed construction for “socket” and “event socket.”” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAOther
“It does not appear that the ’218 patent defines or describes “online gaming information.” The closest references in the specification are two mentions of “game-related activities” that are said to include “online gaming, board games, chess matches, [and] role-playing games.” Ex. 1009, 4:31–32, 8:16–17. These references do not support Patent Owner’s assertion that “online gaming information” should be construed as requiring a relationship to placing bets. Dr. Rubin does not provide any evidence to support the opinion that online gaming information would be “information relevant to placing bets.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 240. However, even using Patent Owner’s definition of “online gaming information” as requiring such information to be “relevant to placing bets” (Prelim. Resp. 58), Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its unpatentability challenges, as we discuss in greater detail below. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Patent Owner’s construction.6” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,039,218 - PTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01311 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 16–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Genius Sports would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“a petition that presents the same or substantially the same art or arguments as were previously presented to the Office. To evaluate arguments for discretionary denial under § 325(d), the Board uses a two-part framework: 4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16, 2013. Because the challenged claims of the ’218 patent have an apparent effective filing date after March 16, 2013, the AIA version of § 103 applies. Ex. 1009, codes (22), (60), (63). Our determinations and findings herein would not change if the pre-AIA provisions applied. (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 10
- Parallel petitionsInstituted
“The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, guides that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CTPG 59. In the instant proceeding, however, we agree with Petitioner’s arguments regarding filing two petitions. For example, we find that each petition challenges different claims and that Petitioner’s division of its challenges into two petitions is supported by the length and nature of the claims. We also agree that Petitioner’s assertion of the same art minimizes the burden on the Board and the parties. Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s arguments that we should institute both petitions. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because we agree with Petitioner’s arguments with respect to the claims and the identity of the prior art used, we consider the merits of the instant petition.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at this preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’218 patent. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’218 patent and with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76). Petitioner additionally asserts that, “[a]dditional education or experience in related fields could compensate for deficits in the above qualifications.” Id. at 18. Patent Owner asserts: A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 96). The parties have not addressed whether the differences in these definitions impact the unpatentability analysis before us. We preliminarily adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which is more specific and appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented, but on the present record we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,039,218 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01307 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–25 and 27–30 on both obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 19–25 and 27–30 of the ’687 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76). Patent Owner cites testimony from Dr. Rubin and contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 103). The differences between the parties’ definitions are minor, as recognized by Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 105), and we do not discern any meaningful differences based on the preliminary record. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’687 patent and the asserted prior art. Notwithstanding, we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther
“ordinary meaning. Pet. 6. Petitioner also argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “socket” is “a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first/second event information is provided to VCDs [viewer client devices].” Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 352). Thus, Petitioner argues that an “event socket” is “a socket where information about each sporting event is provided to VCDs.” Id. Petitioner additionally proposes constructions for certain means-plus-function limitations in claims 27–30. Pet. 7–9. Regarding the means-plus-function limitations in claims 27–30, Patent Owner argues that only relevant construction pertains to this limitation of claim 27: “means for transmitting the first event information to at least the first viewer client device via a first event information communication channel that is different from the first video communication channel.” Prelim. Resp. 8–10. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s construction of this term but notes certain additional citations that Patent Owner contends supports the construction. Id. at 9–10. Otherwise, Patent Owner states that “the Board need not construe any claim terms aside from the means-plus-function limitations.” Id. at 8. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s constructions of “socket” and “event socket.” Regarding the means-plus-function limitations in claims 27–30, we apply all of Petitioner’s constructions with one exception. Specifically, based on the structure and dependency of claim 30, we determine preliminarily that the preamble of claim 30 is non-limiting and does not require construction as a means-plus-function limitation. We determine that no other aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., 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) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“For the reasons given below, we find that Petitioner’s arguments are supported sufficiently by the evidence in the preliminary record before us at this early juncture, and that Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing. For example, we are persuaded preliminarily that Petitioner’s proposed combination would have improved latency issues in Ellis’s system. See Pet. 19–23; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 106–115. This is supported by Spivey’s disclosure that its techniques “may reduce . . . delay [on the order of seconds (e.g., 30 to 45 seconds) or minutes] to an order of milliseconds (ms) (e.g., 100 ms) or less, providing a significant advantage over the conventional practices.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 28. Spivey also discloses pushing data “to the subscribed connected client devices substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source, e.g., with a time delay of 100 milliseconds or less,” which Spivey discloses is “at least two orders of magnitude shorter than conventional time periods of legacy devices.” Id. ¶ 96; see also id. at code (57) (disclosing pushing “the topic entry to a subscribed client device substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source”). We disagree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 27) that “Petitioner manufactures a data latency problem in Ellis, without any explanation as to why a[n ordinarily skilled artisan] would understand one to exist.” The portion of Spivey cited by Petitioner describes that its techniques reduce latency, thus “providing a significant advantage over the conventional practices.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 28; see also id. ¶ 96 (describing improvements of “at least two orders of magnitude” as compared to “conventional time periods of legacy devices”). This teaching shows sufficiently, for purposes of institution, that artisans in the field would have known to consider the problem of latency in delivering live data. Moreover, Patent Owner’s argument that Ellis pertains to “viewing and tuning” and Spivey is not relevant to “how sports viewers commonly watch and interact with displayed sporting events” (Prelim. Resp. 28–29), as well as Dr. Rubin’s related testimony (Ex. 2001 § VI.A.1, ¶¶ 220–223), are based on only a subset of the teachings of both references, rather than the teachings of the references in their entirety. For example, Ellis describes providing real-time data such as sports scores (see, e.g., Ex. 1016 ¶ 41), and Spivey describes that its live data feeds are generated by computing devices associated with a live event (Ex. 1017 ¶ 37). We are mindful that the teachings of the references must be considered as a whole, from the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1361 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“What a prior art reference discloses or teaches is determined from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.”); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (noting that when evaluating claims for obviousness, “the prior art as a whole must be considered”).” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,805,687 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01305 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 over all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would be shown obvious.
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) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–9 of the ’687 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsOther
“1 Of note, Petitioner concurrently filed another petition challenging claims 19–25 and 27–30 of the ’687 patent in IPR2024-01307. Pet. 3–4; Paper 3, 3. Petitioner also filed a ranking of the two petitions in which it ranked the petition in IPR2024-01307 first and the instant Petition second. Paper 3, 3. Notwithstanding, Patent Owner does not put forth any arguments seeking discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) related to Petitioner’s use of more than one petition against the ’687 patent. Moreover, we are satisfied by Petitioner’s stated reasons for filing two petitions. See Paper 3, 2–3.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76). Patent Owner cites testimony from Dr. Rubin and contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 99). The differences between the parties’ definitions are minor, as recognized by Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 101), and we do not discern any meaningful differences based on the preliminary record. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’687 patent and the asserted prior art. Notwithstanding, we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“ordinary meaning. Pet. 6. Petitioner also argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “socket” is “a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first event information is provided to a VCD [viewer client device].” Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 352). Thus, Petitioner argues that an “event socket” is “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to a VCD.” Id. Patent Owner states that “[e]xcept for the ‘event socket’ term for which Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s construction . . . for purposes of [its] preliminary response, Patent Owner agrees that no terms require construction and construes all other terms consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s construction of “socket” and “event socket.” We determine that no other aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., 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
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,805,687 - PTAB · Mar 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01309 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–25 and 27–30, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims in both § 103 grounds would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at this preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’697 patent and with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties have not addressed whether the differences in these definitions impact the unpatentability analysis before us. We preliminarily adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which is more specific and appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented, but on the present record we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). At this early stage, therefore, for the terms which are not contested (all except for the limitation 27.3 means plus function term, addressed below) we use Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the means-plus-function terms with one exception. Specifically, based on the structure and dependency of claim 30, we determine preliminarily that the preamble of claim 30 is non-limiting and does not require construction as a means-plus-function limitation. We use the ordinary and customary meaning of the other claim terms and we decline to provide an express construction of any other claim term. slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues “under” Petitioner’s proposed construction of “socket,” the Petitioner is deficient. Prelim. Resp. 39–40. At this early stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction for either “event socket” or “socket,” and, indeed, applies Petitioner’s proposed construction of “socket.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s construction of “socket” and “event socket.”” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,425,697 - PTAB · Mar 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01308 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–9 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 7–9 are obvious over Ellis and Spivey, claims 2–6 over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog, and claims 1–9 …
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at this preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’697 patent and with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“In accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CTPG 59. In the instant proceeding, however, we agree with Petitioner’s arguments regarding filing two petitions. For example, we find that each petition challenges different claims and that Petitioner’s division of its challenges into two petitions is supported by the length and nature of the claims. We also agree that Petitioner’s 1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. assertion of the same art minimizes the burden on the Board and the parties. Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s arguments that we should institute both petitions. See generally Prelim. Resp. We, therefore, consider the merits of the instant petition, and, for the reasons given below, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties have not addressed whether the differences in these definitions impact the unpatentability analysis before us. We preliminarily adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which is more specific and appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented, but on the present record we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“At this early stage, Petitioner’s proposed constructions of “socket” and “event socket” (Pet. 37) are not disputed by Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 10. Neither party provides an express construction for any other claim term. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, we use Petitioner’s proposed construction for “socket” and 4 POSA and POSITA refer to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “event socket” and the ordinary and customary meaning of the other claim terms. We decline to provide further analysis or an express construction of any other claim term as doing so is not needed to resolve the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,425,697 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01173 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 10, 11, 25, 27, and 30 are unpatentable under § 103 over Grotmol, Grotmol and Hickman, or Grotmol and Hoffman.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jason Janet. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner “adopts” Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 5. We also adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“C. Claim Construction In an inter partes review proceeding, a patent claim is construed using the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim 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). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 9. We determine that no claim terms require an express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See Sections II.D–II.F.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing. Grotmol teaches that a user may train a robot to learn “simple” and “complex” tasks. Ex. 1005, 24:17– 23. The evidence of record indicates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to use different trainers “to train behaviors involving different levels of complexity in order to take advantage of the varying skills and knowledge of trainers.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 341. Thus, based on Grotmol’s teaching that a robot can learn both simple and complex tasks, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a specific reason for different users to train Grotmol’s robot for different behaviors, namely, to benefit from the users’ varying skills and knowledge. Pet. 25; Ex. 1003 ¶ 341; Ex. 1005, 24:17–23. Grotmol also teaches that a user may train a robot “using a gamepad (or other input device . . . ).” Ex. 1005, 26:9–13; see id. at 33:18–21. The evidence of record indicates that “switching users would be as simple as handing off a gamepad or other remote device used for controlling the robot from one user to another.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 73. Neither Patent Owner nor its declarant, Dr. Eli Saber, explains specifically why handing Grotmol’s gamepad to a different user would have created “complexities of combining the mixed knowledge into a single knowledgebase” or required “identifying each user to store particular learned operations and preferences in portions of the knowledgebase for user-specific autonomous operations.” See PO Resp. 14–15; PO Sur-reply 9; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 128–130. Thus, based on Grotmol’s teaching of using a gamepad to train a robot, it would have been simple and straightforward for different users to train Grotmol’s robot for different behaviors. Ex. 1005, 26:9–13, 33:18–21; Ex. 1010 ¶ 73.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“4. Reason to Combine Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the cited teachings of Grotmol and Hickman. Pet. 27–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–166). We agree with Petitioner’s rationale. Specifically, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Grotmol and Hickman so that Grotmol’s robots share training sets using Hickman’s shared robot knowledgebase. Id. at 30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 166. Doing so would have been obvious because Grotmol teaches sharing training sets between robots, and Hickman’s shared robot knowledgebase would facilitate wider and faster sharing of Grotmol’s training sets. Pet. 27–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160–161, 164; Ex. 1005, 33:27–32; Ex. 1007, 1:38–41, 5:41–46, 11:31–41. In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using Hickman’s shared robot knowledgebase with Grotmol’s robot because Hickman’s shared robot knowledgebase would “not interfere” with Grotmol’s robot. Pet. 30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 166.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 11,055,583 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,055,583 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01172 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9, 11–14, 16–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grotmol; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable because Grotmol does not disclose its required sequence.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jason Janet. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner “adopts” Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We also adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties appear to agree that the term “connection” refers to a relationship, but dispute whether it includes a link. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 23. We need not resolve this claim construction issue in order to resolve the parties’ disputes about the asserted ground of unpatentability. Specifically, as discussed below, even if we assume for the purposes of this Decision that the term “connection” means a “relationship that includes a link,” the asserted prior art still discloses the disputed claim limitation. See Section II.D.23.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that claim 15 requires modifying the first instruction set before determining the modified first instruction set based on an at least partial match between the new digital picture and the first digital picture. Claim 15 recites “modifying: the first one or more instruction sets” and “determining the modified the first one or more instruction sets . . . based on the at least partial match between the new one or more digital pictures and the first one or more digital pictures.” Ex. 1001, 162:65–163:15 (emphasis added). The phrase “the modified . . . instruction sets” in the determining limitation indicates an order because it refers back to the instruction sets modified in the modifying limitation. Id. Further, the phrase “based on the at least partial match” indicates that a partial match between the new picture and the first picture returns the modified first instruction set. Id. In order for a partial match to return the modified first instruction set, it is logical that the first instruction set previously was modified and correlated to the first picture. Id. Thus, claim 15 indicates that the modifying limitation is performed before the determining limitation. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, [the recited steps] must be performed in the order written.”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“3. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure for the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more digital pictures,” the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device,” and the “means for learning the first one or more digital pictures correlated with the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device” in claim 34 is “one or more processor circuits.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:8–60). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 11. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for purposes of this Decision. D. Anticipation of Claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 by Grotmol Petitioner argues that claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 11,055,583 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 11,055,583 - Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless v. General Access Solutions, Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01147 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not establish that the claimed second transceiver routes information based on monitored signal characteristics.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the purported invention would have had either: (1) a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science, electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 2 years of work or research experience in digital communications systems, such as wireless communications systems and networks, or equivalent, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or similar field. Additional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa. Ex. 1002, ¶¶1-46. Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. Cf. Ex. 2007 ¶19 (Patent Owner’s declarant, after acknowledging Petitioner’s definition, stating: “Patent Owner has not offered a different understanding of a POSITA, and the PTAB accepted Petitioner’s submission. I accept and use Petitioner’s and the PTAB’s definition of a POSITA.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“During oral argument, both parties confirmed their respective positions that the claim term “route” needs no construction. See, e.g., Tr. 11:7–9 (Petitioner’s counsel: “Frankly, it doesn’t make any difference to the analysis of the prior art. And so, we don’t believe that the PTAB needs to construe the term route, and so we have not proposed a construction.”); id. at 58:25–59:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel: “You know, I don’t think that you have to define routing in order to decide the case. I think you can do it, you know, just apply whatever plain and ordinary meaning is.”); cf. Tr. 40:14–18 (Patent Owner’s counsel at oral argument: “For the routing itself, you know, there is a District Court construction and that’s a construction that the other—the Petitioner did not ask for determination whether that’s appropriate or not appropriate here. We did not address that as well, so the parties aren’t arguing that that construction should be applied here.”). For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior art discloses or teaches, under Petitioner’s articulated theories, that a second transceiver routes information based on monitored characteristics. This is dispositive of the inter partes review. Accordingly, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of deciding the dispositive issues.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1004, 5:25–36 (emphasis added). Thus, Palmer discloses that the determination to roam to another cell may be done by the mobile worker’s wireless communication device 20 having a specifically-programmed processor or may be done centrally, with examples being the “network” or central host processor. We disagree that this constitutes a disclosure of the access point 40 performing the roaming determinations. Rather, we find to be persuasive and credible Dr. Chrissan’s testimony that “a POSITA recognizes that an access point does not qualify as ‘centrally, for example, by the network or a central host processor,’” and, “[i]nstead, this phrase refers to one of the centrally located devices such as network 14 or central host processor 12 (in Fig. 1), or a device in administration building 33 (in Fig. 2).” Ex. 2007 ¶ 71 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 2). Dr. Chrissan’s opinion is consistent with Palmer’s disclosure, as we will now discuss.” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence its foundational assertion that Palmer discloses that “access point 40 determines whether roaming by a portable terminal 20 should take place and routes data packets accordingly.” Pet. 26–27; see Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Failure to prove the matter as required by the applicable standard means that the party with the burden of persuasion loses on that point—thus, if the fact trier of the issue is left uncertain, the party with the burden loses.”). As such, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Palmer discloses, as recited in independent claim 1, a second transceiver that, “based on the first signal characteristics and the second characteristics, routes information to the first mobile station and the second mobile station, respectively,” or, as recited in independent claim 6, “based on the first signal characteristics and the second characteristics, routing, using the second transceiver, information to the first mobile station and the second mobile station, respectively.” Ex. 1001, 10:38–44, 11:19–22. The Petition does not contain a contention that this “route” aspect of the claims would have been obvious. Compare Pet. 25–26 (offering an alternative argument for the monitoring aspect; contending that, “to the extent the Board disagrees that Palmer’s access point 40 performs the monitoring, it would have nonetheless been obvious to a POSA to select the access point 40 to perform the monitoring since it directly communicates with the portable terminals 20.”), with id. at 26–27 (making the anticipationtype contention that “[t]he access point 40 routes information” without an alternative obviousness contention); see also Pet. Reply 12–13 (arguing, under the monitoring-and-routing heading, that monitoring by the access point would have been obvious, but not arguing the same for routing). Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claims 1 and 6 and dependent claims 2–4 are anticipated by or would have been obvious over Palmer.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 9,426,794 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,426,794 - PTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00981 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Kleve-based obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to determine whether to institute review. 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. Therefore, pursuant to § 314, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 in the ’188 patent on all challenges included in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Examiner’s notation indicates that Zaid was considered. We do not agree, however, with Patent Owner’s position regarding Petitioner’s challenges based on Kleve. The challenges over Kleve alone or in combination with Sekiyama, Mottla, and/or Patenaude counsel us not to discretionarily deny institution. Patent Owner does not dispute that Kleve, Sekiyama, Mottla, and/or Patenaude were not before the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 15–24; Prelim. Sur-reply 5. Although Patent Owner characterizes the Petition’s challenges based on Kleve as an “attempt to end-run Section 325(d) by including additional grounds that lack merit” (Prelim. Resp. 23–24), we disagree. Rather, explained in detail below, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s challenges based on Kleve and it is the reason for institution. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s challenges based on Zaid are not relevant. As such, we determine any analysis under Advanced Bionics is inapplicable, and we do not exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution. b. Advanced Bionics Prong Two: whether “the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims” Because the Board is persuaded to instituted based on challenges not involving Zaid, , we will not consider the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the language in Petitioner’s stipulation does not eliminate completely any overlap with district court invalidity arguments. Petitioner’s stipulation allows Petitioner to use any prior art reference that is not relied on in the Petition. This may not fully address “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” See Fintiv, Paper 11 at 12. Nonetheless, Petitioner’s stipulation does decrease the overlap in issues and mitigates to a great degree the concerns regarding duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions. Additionally, we agree with Petitioner that the fact that the Petition challenges claims that are not asserted in the litigation weighs marginally in its favor. Based on the foregoing discussion, we determine that factor four weighs against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 22
- BurdenInstituted
“teaches, or at least suggests, that the user’s “request includes a condition of use of the vehicle as set by the user via the user account” because we are persuaded that the distribution of Kleve’s virtual e-key includes a rental period restriction. Specifically, we are persuaded by the Petition’s reliance on Kleve’s express disclosure that “terms and conditions for the rental period” are agreed to before the virtual key is generated. See Pet. 15 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 38). We preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Kleve describes an e-key that is only operable during a rental period because Kleve discloses “[t]he virtual key may also be sent to the vehicle configuring the VCS to enable the keyless drive system for the appropriate Temporary User during a given rental period.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 39; see Pet. 16. We note Patent Owner’s citations to Kleve’s Figures 2 and 5 that indicate control restrictions are added after the distribution of a virtual key. At this stage of the proceeding, however, based on the disclosure of Kleve we are persuaded the rental period would be included as a restriction when the virtual key is created at step 206 of Figure 2 prior to the distribution of the virtual key at 210. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38–39. At this stage, we credit the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, who opines that Kleve discloses that certain restrictions are sent with the request to generate a virtual key. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 118–123. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Kleve discloses that the virtual key “enable[s] the keyless drive system for the appropriate Temporary User during a given rental period.” restrictions were sent with the request so that the virtual key could be associated with said restrictions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39, 68 (“Once the rental period has expired the virtual key may be reset and cleared from the VCS.”)). Dr. Almeroth further testifies that the virtual key in Kleve is always generated after the rental agreement. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39, 68 (“[O]nce the Temporary User selects the vehicle, pays the appropriate amount and signs a consent agreement, then the system may generate a virtual key to distribute to the Temporary User and VCS.”)). Thus, after review of the arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner has provided adequate explanation and supporting evidence that Kleve teaches or suggests the challenged claim limitation.” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,365,188
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.