- Apple Inc. v. S.M.R. Innovations Ltd And Y.M.R. Tech LtdInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01049 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 22–24 would have been obvious over Chihara, BluetoothSpec, Everett, and Chang.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Thus, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that Chihara, in view of BluetoothSpec and the other references, teaches the “announcer device” limitation. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that it would be likely to prevail if we instituted an inter partes review. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown that there is a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’866 patent is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny the Petition. ORDER It is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Although Petitioner doesn’t promote it in its Petition, we agree with Petitioner’s undisputed contention that the ordinary and customary meaning of the “announcer device” limitation is that the “streaming device is receiving rerouted data from surrounding media handling devices, rather than rerouting data to surrounding media handling devices.” Pet. 19–20. This is in accord with the specification of the ’866 patent which states that “[t]he announcer device 30 is responsible for announcing to the environment the availability of a current device for accepting routed media.” Ex. 1038, 7:22– 24 (emphasis added). The construction that Petitioner does promote, based on its interpretation of Patent Owner’s arguments in the parallel litigation, departs from the term’s ordinary meaning, yet Petitioner has presented no 7 Petitioner also argues that we should construe the term media transformer as a means-plus-function limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pet. 7–11. We need not construe this term to reach our decision not to institute trial in this proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). evidence to justify such a departure. For example, Petitioner has not shown that the patent applicant has plainly acted as lexicographer for the term, or has plainly disavowed the full scope of the term. See Thorner v. Sony, 669 F.3d at 1365; Multiform Desiccants v. Medzam, 133 F.3d at 1477. We are aware of no evidentiary basis for Petitioner’s proposed construction in the specification or prosecution history of the ’866 patent. To the extent, if any, that Patent Owner may have argued in the parallel district court proceeding for a departure from the term’s ordinary meaning, we find no clear disavowal of the term’s scope, particularly in light of Patent Owner’s ultimate argument that the term should have its “[p]lain meaning.” Ex. 2008, 2.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“In light of our disagreement with Petitioner’s proposed claim- construction, we do not find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that Chihara teaches the “announcer limitation,” either alone or in light of BluetoothSpec. Although Petitioner shows that Chihara’s phone 11B announces its availability for pairing with nearby Bluetooth-compatible devices, Petitioner does not argue that phone 11B indicates availability to receive any rerouted data from either headset 13 or watch 12B. To the extent that phone 11B receives streaming or media data for rerouting, it appears to receive it from a mobile or fixed communication network, not from any surrounding Bluetooth devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 79 (phone 11B receives video and audio data via “a fixed telephone network or another mobile telephone set accommodated in a mobile communication network,” and transmits that streaming data to watch 12B and headset 13), 53–54 (calls arrive via mobile telephone antenna 26, which are then processed and transmitted via Bluetooth antenna 21 to watch 12). Regarding the bidirectional communication between phone 11B and headset 13 or watch 12B, Petitioner has not pointed to any evidence that the data sent from watch 12B or headset 13 to phone 11B includes rerouted streaming data. Similarly, Petitioner’s contention that Chihara’s phone 11B, in light of BluetoothSpec, indicates its availability (e.g., that the phone is “powered on” and transmits signals to discover nearby devices) fails to meet the plain language of claim 22, which requires the streaming device (phone 11B) to indicate its availability to receive streaming data rerouted from the surrounding devices (headset 13 or watch 12B). Thus, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that Chihara, in view of BluetoothSpec and the other references, teaches the “announcer device” limitation. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that it would be likely to prevail if we instituted an inter partes review.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,711,866 - PTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00730 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 were anticipated or obvious over Lee or Zheng.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Petition, to justify institution of review, must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition has not met this standard. Therefore, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“capability to include one or both first CBs and second CBs within any one of the CBGs. Prelim. Resp. 9–10. The plain and ordinary meaning of the CB/CBG limitation, however, does not provide such a requirement. Instead, the plain and ordinary meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” simply requires that at least one CBG contain each CB. Although the description in the Specification of the configuration example of Figure 11(c) arguably describes the capacity of a system to include the first and second CBs in any one of CBGs, the Specification’s permissive language does not appear in the challenged claims. That description reads:” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“multiple CB/CBG limitation, we nevertheless find it necessary to construe the limitation. Upon review of the record, we construe the limitation as requiring that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. The plain meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” is that each CB is included in a CBG, which means that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. Further, the Specification supports construing the limitation to have this plain meaning. Figure 11 of the ’509 patent, shown below, provides a configuration example of CBGs (Ex. 1001, 23:7–8):” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“multiple CB/CBG limitation, we nevertheless find it necessary to construe the limitation. Upon review of the record, we construe the limitation as requiring that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. The plain meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” is that each CB is included in a CBG, which means that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. Further, the Specification supports construing the limitation to have this plain meaning. Figure 11 of the ’509 patent, shown below, provides a configuration example of CBGs (Ex. 1001, 23:7–8):” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,196,509 - PTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00310 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 4–6 and 8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 4–6 and 8 are obvious over Lee1 and Lee2.
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. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’207 patent. We institute this inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In its Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner generally concurs with [Petitioner’s] description, though would propose that a POSITA only needs two years of experience . . . . [but] does not believe any difference between Patent’s Owner’s view and Petitioners’ view affects the unpatentability analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 24. We agree with Patent Owner that the difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s formulations would not affect our analysis of patentability. We preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s formulation, which is supported by expert testimony and is generally consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and the prior art. See, e.g., Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“When construing claim terms, we first review the language of the claims. TQ Delta, LLC v. DISH Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The claim recites four terms: “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(0),” “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(1),” “powerRampingStep(0),” and “powerRampingStep(1).” Ex. 1001, 36:57–62. These terms represent outputs of, or values dependent on, inputs (0) or (1). Id. at 29:30–53; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 21– 23. Given that claim 4 separately lists initial power values “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(0)” and “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(1),” we are skeptical of Petitioner’s argument that these two values should be construed to mean a single value (i.e., preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower), because that would render the separate listing superfluous. Moreover, if the two values “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(0)” and “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(1)” were construed to mean single value preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower, the additional “(0)” and “(1)” claim language would be superfluous. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.”); Dig.-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phx., Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting “the importance of construing claim terms in light of the surrounding claim language, such that words in a claim are not rendered superfluous”); Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”); Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (construing claim to avoid rendering the 30 degree claim limitation superfluous); Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo–Trans, Inc., 93 F.3d 766, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (rejecting the district court’s claim construction because it rendered superfluous the claim requirement for openings adjacent to the end walls).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“The obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Because the prior art need not explicitly disclose or explicitly suggest the proposed modification (here, at least according to Patent Owner, making initial power and power ramping dependent on procedure type), the absence of precise teachings regarding the proposed modification does not undermine the grounds of unpatentability. Lee2 discloses initial power and power ramping functions dependent on input. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 63, 71–74. Specifically, Lee2 discloses using, based on measured signal power (RSRP), event/distance as input for initial power and power ramping. Id. Lee2 does not, nor could it, address using procedure type as input for initial power and power ramping because Lee2 only discloses 1 type of procedure––the conventional 4-step. Ex. 1006, Fig. 3. Per Lee1, reducing from the conventional 4-step to 2-step is a development in the technology to reduce time delay. Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Although not discussed in Lee1, the prosecution history shows that switching from 4-step to 2-step is similarly based on measured RSRP. Prelim. Resp. 39 (discussing prosecution history); Ex. 4039–40. Patent Owner’s declarant also acknowledges that there is a correlation (albeit unreliable) between RSRP and distance. Ex. 2002 ¶ 27 (“RSRP may or may not correspond to distance in the real world due to various wireless artifacts . . . .”). Accordingly, we are preliminarily persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art, facing the needs created by the development of new types of procedures (i.e., the 2-step), and upon recognizing the link between event/distance, procedure type, and measured RSRP, would have, in light of Lee2, seen a benefit and had a reasonable expectation of success in using initial power and power ramping functions dependent on procedure type.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,932,207 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2024 · IPR2024-00510 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2 and 4 were obvious over any of the three asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Petition, to justify institution of review, must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition has not met this standard. Therefore, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s formulations would not affect our analysis of patentability. We adopt Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The specification of the ’976 patent (“Specification”) does not expressly define the first RNTI phrase, but it provides some support for Patent Owner’s implicit construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:41–46 (“URLLC C-RNTI (i.e., different RNTI from SPS C-RNTI)”). The prosecution history for the ’976 patent does not provide evidence regarding how the first RNTI phrase should be construed. See Ex. 1002. Ordinary usage, however, favors Patent Owner’s implicit construction. For example, the term “object” in the phrase “an object different from a ball” would generally exclude a ball. As an illustration, in ordinary usage, a tennis ball would generally not be considered to be an object different from a ball merely because baseballs also exist. Similarly, a red ball would not be considered to be different from a ball merely because green balls exist. Instead, in ordinary usage, an object different from a ball would be limited to objects that are not balls, such as a tennis racket and a baseball bat. Further, Petitioner has not given us any reason to adopt its proposed implicit construction even though it could have anticipated that its implicit claim construction would be at issue based on Patent Owner’s reasonably expected arguments. Pet. 4–5, 32–37; see also id. at 36 (“If Patent Owner argues that the SPS RNTIs of Babaei are semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTIs, Babaei still satisfies the requirement that the ‘first RNTI’ be ‘different from … a semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTI’ . . .”). After reviewing the record, we construe the first RNTI phrase as requiring that the recited first RNTI is not a semi-persistent scheduling C- RNTI.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner recognized that Patent Owner might argue that the SPS RNTIs of Babaei are semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTIs. Pet. 36 (“If Patent Owner argues that the SPS RNTIs of Babaei are semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTIs”). Petitioner, however, made no attempt to prove and, in fact, does not argue that the SPS RNTIs of Babaei are not semi-persistent scheduling C- RNTIs. Id. Instead, Petitioner relies on its implicit construction for the first RNTI phrase and asserts that, because there are differences between Babaei’s SPS RNTIs, they satisfy the first RNTI phrase (even if both SPS RNTIs are semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTIs). Id. As discussed in Section II.B.1 above, we did not adopt that implicit construction. Instead, we construed the first RNTI phrase to require that the first RNTI is not a semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTI, and Petitioner has not shown that what it maps the recited first RNTI to is not a semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTI. See Section II.B.1 above. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing for the first RNTI recitation. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that claims 2 or 4 would have been obvious over the combination of Babaei and Fwu.” slip op. at 17
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 10,484,976 - PTAB · Jul 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00402 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4 and all asserted grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Lee anticipation challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’958 patent. Thus, we institute this inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“We find Patent Owner’s proposed “wireless communications” is more consistent with the ’958 patent than Petitioner’s proposed “telecommunication,” which encompasses a variety of technologies including, e.g., landline and wireless telephones, cable, and satellite. See Ex. 1001, 1:11–62 (describing the invention in terms of wireless communications). We therefore adopt a modified version of Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, substituting “wireless communications” for “telecommunication.” The parties rely on expert testimony for their respective positions relating to the number of years of experience needed to attain ordinary skill, but neither expert cites supporting evidence for their testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 33; Ex. 2002 ¶ 15. Our decision to institute would be the same regardless of whether the length of experience is two years or three. If the parties believe the proposed differing lengths of experience would affect the analysis of patentability in this case, they should address that issue at trial and cite to evidence in the record to support their positions.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner expressly construe any claim terms. See Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 19. We preliminarily determine that no claim construction is necessary for our decision to institute an inter partes review apart from that discussed in our analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms in controversy must be construed “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“(a) Limitation [1c]: Petitioner’s Contentions We begin our analysis on disputed limitation [1c]. Limitation [1c] recites “upon a change of a second type SIB whose associated information indicated before the change that the second type SIB was provided on-demand, to include in the first type SIB the information associated with the second type SIB indicating that the second type SIB is provided by broadcast.” Petitioner contends that limitation [1c] is disclosed or suggested by” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,841,958 - PTAB · May 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00093 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 and all asserted grounds, finding compelling evidence that Hirler anticipates claim 1.
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. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). We may institute review, however, only upon a determination that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Applying that standard, for reasons set forth below, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Id. at 5–6. In evaluating these factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6. We also apply additional guidance issued by the Director on the application of the Fintiv factors. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022).12 The Fintiv Memo states that “to benefit the patent system and the public good, the PTAB will not rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Id. at 2.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“1. “the sidewalls of said trenches in said base layer” Petitioner requests an express construction of a single claim term, namely, the term in claim 1 that specifies “the sidewalls of said trenches in said base layer.” Pet. 17. We agree with Patent Owner that no express construction of that term is necessary to resolve whether to institute review. See Prelim. Resp. 4 (arguing that this term “has no apparent relevance to any of the asserted prior art grounds”). We thus decline to expressly construe the term at this stage of the proceeding. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claim terms are construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, on this record, we preliminarily determine that the phrase “lateral contact layer” does not require “a dopant concentration between P and P+ (P* doping) for an N-channel MOSFET or between N and N+ (N* doping) in a P-channel MOSFET.” Prelim. Resp. 8. b. Dopant Implantation We next consider Patent Owner’s view that “the lateral contact layer” of claim 1 requires “a region of dopant which is implanted into sidewalls of the source contact trenches.” Prelim. Resp. 8. We discern no words in claim 1, and the parties identify none, that even remotely touch upon a requirement related to dopant implantation. See id. at 7–8; Ex. 1001, 5:37– 6:17 (claim 1). Patent Owner argues that the written description “makes clear that the lateral contact layer is implanted into the sidewall of the source contact trenches.” Prelim. Resp. 7. However, by way of support, Patent Owner again merely directs the Board to written descriptions of embodiments of the invention. See id. at 7–8 (highlighting portions of the specification that describe embodiments of the invention). Patent Owner does not argue that the phrase “lateral contact layer” is” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,629,634 - PTAB · May 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00094 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6 and all asserted grounds, finding a compelling and reasonably likely obviousness challenge to claim 1 over Kobayashi and Hshieh.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), “at the filing date of the ’409 [p]atent[,] would have a master’s degree in electrical engineering, and at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design and manufacturing.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. 6 Hshieh et al., US 5,763,914, issued June 9, 1998. Ex. 1006 (“Hshieh”). We adopt Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, which is supported by declaration testimony and consistent with the ’409 patent and prior art of record. See Ex. 1001, 1:6–3:8 (describing the invention and related art in terms of integrated circuit design and fabrication).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Based on the preliminary arguments and evidence, we disagree with Petitioner’s proposed construction requiring the corners to be rounded via a particular process because it improperly imports a process of manufacture from the Specification into apparatus claims. See Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 799 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Vanguard Prods. Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 234 F.3d 1370, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Generally, ‘[a] novel product that meets the criteria of patentability is not limited to the process by which it was made.’”)). We also preliminarily disagree with Petitioner’s assessment of the prosecution history, i.e., that the claims were amended to distinguish the claimed rounded corners from 7 Pfirsch et al., US 6,541,818, issued April 1, 2003. Ex. 1011. Pfirsch’s rounded corners. Indeed, both the Examiner found and Patent Owner admitted that Pfirsch has the recited “rounded corner[s].” See Ex. 1002, 237, 302. Patent Owner appears, at this stage, to be correct that the claims were amended to include a “circular” contact to distinguish over Pfirsch’s square contact. See id. at 295, 302.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“We disagree at this stage. Petitioner’s rationale for combining Kobayashi with Hshieh is not solely based on Hshieh’s top view rounding being well known. Rather, Petitioner’s rationale is clearly based on express teachings in Hshieh about the benefits of top view rounding. See Pet. 54, 59 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:3–17, Figs. 6A–8B; Ex. 1003 ¶ 137); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 133. For example, Petitioner and its declarant refer to Hshieh’s teaching at column 5, lines 3–17, which states, “[i]n order to prevent the corner vulnerability where punch through weak points may be formed at the sharp corners due to a three-dimension diffusion effect . . . , the sharp corners of the polysilicon openings can be either blunted or rounded.” See Pet. 59; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 137. Accordingly, at this stage, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently articulated a motivation to combine the top view rounding of Hshieh with Kobayashi.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundInstituted
“Next, Patent Owner argues that Hshieh teaches non-orthogonal parallelogram-shaped cells to increase cell packing density and “specifically identifies square cell configurations as having disadvantageous packing densities.” Prelim. Resp. 23. Patent Owner argues that Hshieh therefore “plainly teach[es] away from combining Hshieh with Kobayashi in the manner claimed.” Id. We do not agree at this stage. Although Hshieh teaches that non- orthogonal cells are preferable over square cells, Patent Owner has not pointed out anything in Hshieh that would “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” modifying Kobayashi’s square cells to have rounded corners. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention . . . .”). Thus, we find nothing in the preliminary record to suggest that Hshieh teaches away from the combination.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,812,409 - PTAB · May 5, 2022 · IPR2022-00063 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–34 and all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail on obviousness over Ellsberry and Jeddeloh.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“another patent asserted in the Related Case was filed within a week of the Preliminary Response. Id. We decline to attempt to predict how the District Court would proceed should a stay be requested by either of the parties. Accordingly, we find that this factor neither favors nor weighs against discretionary denial of inter partes review. C. Factor 2 — Proximity of Court’s Trial Date Patent Owner admits that “[t]he district of Delaware has not yet set a trial date.” Id. Accordingly, this factor weighs against exercising our discretion to deny inter partes review.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Given the facts above, because Averbuj was not presented in combination with the other references asserted here and is only used in two of the four grounds, the combination of references asserted in the Petition do not qualify as art that was “previously presented” to the Office. Thus, we find that the combination of references asserted in the Petition, were not previously presented to the Office. Additionally, Patent Owner does not assert or explain sufficiently that Ellsberry, Jeddeloh, and/or Lee are cumulative of any reference cited during prosecution of the ’523 patent. Prelim. Resp. 41–43. On this record, we are not persuaded that Ellsberry, Jeddeloh, and Lee are cumulative of any reference cited during prosecution of the ’523 patent. Accordingly, the first condition of the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied, and we need not consider whether Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Conclusion After evaluating the Becton, Dickinson factors within the Advanced” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization or offer its own. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill, which we determine is consistent with the ’523 patent written description and the asserted prior art. slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner offers constructions of several terms which are not disputed by Patent Owner. Pet. 13–15. Nevertheless, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any of the terms of the claims at this juncture. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,217,523 - Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 29, 2022 · IPR2020-00208 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, and 12–18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Duan under § 102(a)(1).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in lighting design, including knowledge of LEDs and related technology for driving LEDs. A person of ordinary skill in the art with a higher level of education may have fewer years of academic or industry experience, or vice versa. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“embodiments that operate with a low frequency driving signal in a double-ended configuration, Patent Owner did not recite “low frequency” or “double-ended” in its claims and instead chose the broader term “first driving mode.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The fact that a limitation in the specification may define over the prior art does not justify importing that limitation into the claims unless a term is expressly defined such that the patentee becomes his own lexicographer or there is an express disavowal of claim scope. See GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1308–09 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There is no evidence of an express disavowal here. As to lexicography, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification defines the phrase “first driving mode.” Patent Owner relies on the mere fact that the specification describes an embodiment with a first driving mode that has a low frequency driving signal and is in a “double-ended” configuration, but this is not sufficient to define the term. The specification does not require that a low frequency driving signal must necessarily be used. In fact the specification, although not entirely clear, suggests that the driving signal may be from a high frequency ballast. Ex. 1001, 51:8–14. Thus, the fact that the patent here discloses a low frequency driving signal does not mean that all the claims are directed to such a driving signal. See E-Pass Tech., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, dependent claim 15 recites “the first driving mode is performed when the external driving signal is a relatively low frequency or voltage signal,” while the independent claims were directed to a more general driving signal. The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that the independent claims here should not include explicit limitations of a dependent claim. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We determine that Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the Chinese priority patent applications it relies on—the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application—provide written description support for the limitation of “a mode determination circuit, configured to generate a first determined result signal based on the external driving signal” and “a mode switching circuit, coupled to the filter circuit and the driving circuit, configured to determine whether to perform a first driving mode or a second driving mode based on the first determined result signal,” recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 31–34, 60–67. Specifically, Patent Owner relies on structures in the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application that are not sufficiently similar to structures in the ’826 patent i.e., DR Circuit 140, excluding diodes D5 and D6, as shown in Figs. 24i-j and 29b. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2001, 23–24, 29, and 33, Fig. 24i–j and 29b).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“For the reasons above, Patent Owner has not established that claim 1 of the ’826 patent is entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application (i.e., June 10, 2015) or the ’586 Application (i.e., March 26, 2015). Because the remaining asserted claims are dependent claims, Patent Owner has also not established that claims 7 and 12–18 of the ’826 patent are entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application or the ’586 Application. The application that led to the ’826 patent was filed on March 25, 2016. The ’826 patent claims it is a continuation-in-part of application No. 15/055,630 (“the ’630 Application”), filed on February 28, 2016. So, even if the challenged claims were entitled to the earlier February 28, 2016 filing date, Duan issued on July 1, 2015, and is, thus, prior art to the challenged claims of the ’826 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,807,826 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,807,826 - Vudu, LLC v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01688 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are unpatentable over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. does it present its own definition. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” “SegmentBase,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its briefing. We need not construe any claim term to resolve any issues before us, and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
“not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely because paragraph 253 uses the term “[h]ereinafter” before it discloses “two simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited 8 Ex. 2005 is Application No. 16/168,933 (“the ’933 application”). in limitations [38.6], [40.6], and [46.6]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicates a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. MTA 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 38, 40, and 46 do not find sufficient written description support in the ’644 application nor in the ’933 application, whether considered individually or collectively, and thus, these claims contain new matter.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“rationale for combining DIS 23009-1 with M20060, Petitioner persuasively contends that: A POSA would have been motivated to add the additional “metadata” described in M20060 to the MPDs described in the DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 references in order to enable the client to choose the most suitable version of media content among alternative versions of media content. For example, M20060 describes that the additional metadata (e.g., the extended accessibility element and the usedWith, equivalentTo, bitDepth, minBitDepth, and maxBitDepth attributes) helps “both users and clients to select appropriate representations” by, for example, “1) supporting accessibility, 2) describing relationships of representations, and 3) describing media’s bit depth.” Moreover, a POSA would have had an expectation of success in modifying the MPDs in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 to include the additional metadata described below because it simply would have been a matter of adding additional metadata to the MPD XML schemas described in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1. Id. (citing Ex. 1094 ¶ 33; Ex. 1097 § 1, 1). Dr. Bestavros persuasively explains that “M20060 expressly references the DIS 23001-6 reference and proposes specific modifications to the MPEG DASH metadata included in the MPD XML schema.” Ex. 1094 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1097 § 1, 1 (introduction of M20060); Ex. 1097, 7 (references cited by M20060)).” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 10,270,830 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,270,830
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.