- PTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01087 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13, 15–35, and 37–43 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We determine Petitioner’s showing discussed above regarding Limitations [1.i–1.l] to be sufficient for institution. Petitioner’s showing in large measure relies on Hackborn’s straightforward description of changing the appearance of grass displayed in “live” wallpaper in response to a finger swipe in combination with Westerman’s disclosures of interpreting user input on touch screens as swipes. See, e.g., Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 33; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 18–19. With regard to the contested Limitations [1.i and 1.k], we note particularly that Petitioner’s combination relies on Westerman’s disclosure of interpreting user inputs that exceed various thresholds as “a swipe event.” This showing is sufficient for institution to show the threshold determination required by Limitation [1.j]. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19; Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 19). Petitioner’s combination relies on Hackborn’s animation of the grass on the wallpaper “that makes the grass blades look as if the finger is actually contacting them as it drags across the screen of the device.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 33; see Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 33). On this preliminary record, Petitioner’s position that “the farther the swipe, the more extreme the grass movement expected from Hackborn” naturally follows from Hackborn’s description. Pet. 23. As such, we determine Petitioner’s showing that the proposed combination of Hackborn and Westerman changes the grass appearance based at least in part of the magnitude of the swipe to be sufficient for institution for Limitation [1.k].” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a related field, and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 9 n.2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26); Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Dr. Cockburn also indicates that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 26.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage, we agree with the parties that no terms need to be construed expressly. We discuss claim interpretation to the extent necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Hackborn’s mobile device with a touch screen able to display “live” wallpaper and Westerman’s techniques for interpreting swipe gesture inputs, including distinguishing between tap and swipe gestures using predetermined thresholds. Pet. 9–11, 12–13; see Pet. 9–14 (describing Petitioner’s “Hackborn-Westerman Combination”). Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA reviewing Hackborn would have naturally looked to Westerman to better understand how to implement Hackborn’s teachings, for example, how to discern between different user inputs (e.g., tap or swipe).” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner Petitioner proposes. Pet. 13–14. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that, because “recognizing predetermined touch inputs was known, and Hackborn and Westerman both describe the use of touchscreen devices and would have reasonably understood the combination of Hackborn and Westerman to be successful with no unexpected results.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53; Ex. 1004 ¶ 28, Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 18, 19, 25, 41, 59, 61–64).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,656,755 - PTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01091 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 27, 30, 32, 34, 59, 62, and 64 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d. Conclusion Regarding Asserted Obviousness over Kim In sum, for the reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s showing regarding claim 1 is sufficient for institution. Accordingly, having reviewed the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence cited therein, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Kim renders obvious claim 1. As such, Petitioner’s showing is sufficient to institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”); see SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Notwithstanding, we address other claims and other grounds below, particularly in response to Patent Owner’s preliminary arguments.” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a related field, and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 10 n.4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26); Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Dr. Cockburn also indicates that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner indicates it “does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Dr. Surati indicates that his opinions provided in his declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are “provided from the perspective of the POSITA” proposed by Dr.Cockburn. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). consistent with the prior art of record. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“standards for finding lexicography in a specification are exacting. Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning and must clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). As Patent Owner correctly notes, the specification states: In various embodiments, the contact pressure level may be represented by a touch state. In the context of the present description, a touch state refers to a predefined subset of the range of measurable contact pressures. For example, in one embodiment, contact pressure levels may be represented as one of four predefined touch states: no touch, light touch, medium touch, and heavy touch. Ex. 1001, 19:35–41; Prelim. Resp. 27 (quoting Ex. 1001, 19:35–41). Patent Owner, however, has not identified any words of manifest exclusion or restriction in that passage that indicate an intent to redefine the claim term. Rather than indicating the claims are to be restricted, the specification indicates how that the term “touch state” is to be understood in the descriptions presented in the specification. Ex. 1001, 19:36–37.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“would have been obvious over Kim and Bowens to be sufficient for institution. Petitioner generally relies on Kim’s description as discussed above. Pet. 62–68. Specifically, in its combination, Petitioner relies on Kim’s hold event and scaling operation for Limitations [1.g and 1.h]. Pet. 64–67. Petitioner additionally relies on Bowen as providing details on recognizing and acting on specific gestures on a user interface. See, e.g., Pet. 55. Petitioner provides reasons one of ordinary skill would have combined the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. See, e.g., Pet. 53–62. Petitioner also provides reasons one of ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 60–61.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,936,114 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Mojo Mobility Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 2, 2025 · IPR2023-01090 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8, 13, and 15–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over the Fells-based combinations set out in the grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 13) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“charger surface, to inductively transfer power to the receiver [of the first mobile device],” as recited in limitation 1(k). Pet. 5 (bolding omitted). Petitioner contends this term should be construed as a means-plus-function term, and that the underlined portion identified above identifies the function. Id. at 5–6. Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure is described in the Specification and in dependent claims 24 and 25. Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:35–38 (“[T]he charger and or receiver can include means to provide more precise alignment between the charger and receiver coils and antennas. These can include visual, physical, or magnetic means to assist the user in alignment of parts.”); 25:56–63 (claim 24: “the means for position includes one or more magnets to position the receiver in the power transfer position”, claim 25: “means for positioning includes one or more members of a group consistent of visual, physical, or magnetic means to assist in the positioning the receiver in the power transfer position.”)). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s position on this term. See PO Resp. Our Decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the claims on which we instituted trial. Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability of a claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). As stated above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s contentions. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and conclude that they show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 8, 13, and 15–18 of the ’349 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyOther
“[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” Commscope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (emphasis added). This is the standard I previously applied to Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17. Inst. Dec. (Fitzpatrick, J., concurring at 2). During trial, all of Petitioner’s challenges went unrebutted, including Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17. See PO Resp. 1 (Patent Owner “elects to not proffer additional argument on the papers or through any hearings that may occur in this proceeding.”). Thus, because I previously determined Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17 presented compelling merits and because Patent Owner did not rebut that challenge during trial, I conclude that Petitioner has necessarily met its burden of proving claim 17 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 11,292,349 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,292,349 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Mojo Mobility Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 2, 2025 · IPR2023-01089 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over the Fells-based grounds; the Board adopted the unrebutted petition analyses.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 12) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s position on this term. See PO Resp. Our decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“obvious over Fells. Pet. 7–76. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions. See PO Resp. Having considered the arguments and evidence before us, we find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 would have been obvious over Fells. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’”).” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 11,292,349 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,292,349 - Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00937 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 were obvious over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In sum, the Petition fails to demonstrate that the asserted prior art teaches, or renders obvious, the “causing a communication” limitation, let alone it being in response to the “determination” limitation. There is not a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to claim 1.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Ex. 1001, 60:4–6. But nothing in the claim suggests that the determination is optional or that it need not ever occur. For example, the “in response to” limitation of claim 1 does not use the conjunction “if,” as was the case in Schulhauser. See 2016 WL 6277792, *3 (interpreting “triggering an alarm state if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria” such that “triggering an alarm state” only needs to be performed “if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria.”).7 In fact, the prior step (a) of claim 1 explicitly requires the determination, reciting: “(a) determining whether a predefined portion of the predefined area of the ad content display page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Ex. 1001, 60:1–3. As properly construed, the “in response to” language modifies the recited step of “causing a communication to be sent from the remote computing device to one or more dispatcher servers” such that the step must be “in response to a determination that the predefined portion of the predefined area of the ad content display page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Ex. 1001, 60:4–8. In other words, “causing a communication” is a required step of the method of claim 1.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art also would have had “experience in the internet advertising industry” and urges us to adopt the same formulation as we adopted in the final written decision in IPR2023-00953. Prelim. Resp. 4. We agree with Patent Owner that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had such experience. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). The difference between the parties’ proposals as to the person of ordinary skill in the art, however, is immaterial here. Thus, for purposes of deciding the Petition, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“when the content area is visible.” (citing Ex. 1018, 10:16–18)); see also Ex. 1018, 5:11–14 (“In operation S202, the system identifies whether the event occurs. When the event occurs, the system performs operation S203, otherwise, the system waits for the event to occur. In this instance, the event may include a user enter event or a scrolling event.”). Whether a scrolling event occurs, however, does not satisfy the specific language of the claim reciting “a determination that the predefined portion of the predefined area of the ad content display page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Nor does the Petition explain how it might.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,741,482 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00697 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 were not proven unpatentable: Rauhala does not disclose the required simultaneous signal-strength determinations, and Masaaki does not cure the deficiency for claim 4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Following institution, Patent Owner maintained the same level of ordinary skill proposed in its preliminary response and did not address our discussion of the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 24–25; see also Prelim. Resp. 24. For the reasons discussed in the Institution Decision, we adopt and apply for this Decision the level of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. See Dec. 8–10. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’825 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27– 31. Our decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- 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 the desired signal and interferer signal must be received at the same time. The plain language of the claim requires the wireless transceiver to “receiv[e] a wireless signal having a desired signal and an interferer signal,” the determining of a signal strength of the interferer signal and the determining of a signal strength of the desired signal must be performed at the same time; otherwise, the determinations of signal strengths would not be of the same wireless signal. The specification supports this understanding. “When a receiver is actively receiving a desired signal, each block in the signal path has at its input the desired signal as well as noise and possibly interfering signals.” Ex. 1001, 5:20–22; see also id. at 5:31–33 (“FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate examples of desired signals, interferers, and noise that may be received by one of the various circuits in a” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Rauhala does not state that the signal strengths are measured simultaneously or at the same time. Indeed, as discussed above, Rauhala indicates unequivocally in the same paragraph the opposite—that detector DET provides to control unit 42 “an indication about either the receive channel signal strength RSS or the strength of any signal on the reception band.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 17. Rauhala describes that “control unit 42 provides two one-bit control signals cA and cM” based on indications received from detector DET. Id. Importantly, Rauhala indicates that “at the same time as” describes how the control unit 42 uses the received inputs RSS and RSSn shown in Figure 4, which are described earlier in paragraph 17 as indications of either RSS or RSSn from detector DET. Id. (“Signal cA is 0 when signal RSS is greater than S4 and signal RSSn is at the 11 Dr. Baker’s reply declaration correctly quotes Rauhala paragraph 17 but cites to paragraph 18. We deem this harmless error. same time smaller than Sn. . . . Signal cM is 1 when signal RSS is not greater than S4 and signal RSSn is at the same time at least Sn. Otherwise, signal cM is 0.”). The burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rauhala discloses the disputed limitations as arranged or combined in the claim. Petitioner does not persuasively reconcile these “either/or” statements regarding the functioning of detector DET with the “at the same time as” statements regarding control signals output by control unit 42 in paragraph 17. We do not find persuasive Petitioner counsel’s position expressed at the hearing that Rauhala’s “either/or” statements are “simply an imprecise description” (Tr. 16:22–24). We do not see a lack of precision in Rauhala’s “either/or” statements.” slip op. at 30
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“When asked at his deposition to explain Rauhala’s use of the word “or” regarding the functioning of detector DET, Dr. Baker asserted that “[detectors] can be designed to determine RSS or RSSn.” Ex. 2016, 85:5– 12. We find Dr. Baker’s testimony that “it’s reasonable that if you can design . . . the detector to detect one or the other, you can also design it to detect both” to be without factual support. Id. at 85:13–16. He points to no textbook or other independent evidence to support that would have led one of ordinary skill to design such a detector or to support that one of ordinary skill would have understood Rauhala’s detector to be so designed. Furthermore, Dr. Baker recognizes that “Rauhala doesn’t teach the details of what’s in the detector.” Id. at 91:6–7. We give little weight to Dr. Baker’s unsupported testimony that one could design a detector to detect both RSS and RSSn from the same wireless signal. See 37 C.F.R. 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., No. IPR2022-00624, 2022 WL 3648989, at *6 (PTAB 2022) (precedential) (Director affirming because “the cited declaration testimony is conclusory and unsupported, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight”).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 10,129,825 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,129,825 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00698 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–11, 13, and 19–21 were not shown unpatentable because Rauhala does not disclose simultaneous desired and interferer signal-strength determinations, defeating anticipation and the obviousness combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The two proposals are materially similar in the education requirement, but differ marginally in professional experience required (three versus five years). See supra. While we were persuaded, on the preliminary record, that both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals were consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’202 patent and the prior art of record, on balance, we determined that Petitioner’s proposal was a better reflection of the level of skill in the prior art, and we therefore adopted it for our Institution Decision. See Institution Dec. 12–13. For this Decision, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’202 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker. See Baker I Decl. ¶¶ 28–32. Our Decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“85:13–16. He admits that “Rauhala doesn’t teach the details of what’s in the detector.” Id. at 91:6–7. He points to no textbook or other independent evidence that would have led a person of ordinary skill to design such a detector. Our Trial Practice Guide cautions against crediting such unsupported testimony: The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, the testimony must be based on sufficient facts and data. Fed. R. Evid. 702(b). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (Nov. 2019).7 We therefore give Dr, Baker’s unsupported testimony on this issue little weight.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Having considered the positions of the parties, we find that for the purpose of this decision, we do not need to construe these terms to resolve a dispute.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“requirement.” Pet. Reply 5. We do not agree with Petitioner. We find that the language of the claims supports Patent Owner’s argument that the desired signal and the interferer signal are received together. As discussed infra, claim limitations 7.7 and 7.8 recite determining a signal strength of the interferer signal and determining a signal strength of the desired signal. These determinations must be performed at the same time; otherwise, the determinations of signal strengths would not be of the same wireless signal. See Larson II Decl. ¶ 70; Baker II Decl. ¶¶ 48–49 (explaining that consideration of signal strengths detected at the same time would be “essential”). The specification of the ’202 patent further supports this finding: “When a receiver is actively receiving a desired signal, each block in the signal path has at its input the desired signal as well as noise and possibly interfering signals.” Ex. 1001, 5:22–24; see also Figs. 2A, 2B (showing interferer signals and desired signals together).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,524,202 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,524,202 - New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00778 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim: Clark and Mills each failed to disclose required limitations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Nike applies New Balance’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’749 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our patentability evaluations below.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 17, 2024 · IPR2023-00876 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are unpatentable: claims 1–4 and 6 as obvious over Linnarsson and McCloskey, and claim 5 as obvious over those references and ordinary skill.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1065 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s October, 27, 2023, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). Because it was not filed until March 29, 2024, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration. In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 1–2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s October 27, 2023, objection to McCloskey. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1065).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We find that both references are analogous art to the ’981 patent, as there is ample supporting evidence in the record, including that to which the Reply cites (citations identified in the immediately preceding paragraph). Indeed, Patent Owner does not dispute the merits of either argument. PO Sur-Reply 27–28. Rather, Patent Owner, argues that we “should not now permit Petitioner to rewrite its clearly-deficient Petition.” Id. at 28. Petitioner’s Reply does not re-write its Petition. What Petitioner’s Reply does, in response to Patent Owner’s arguments, is precisely what Sanofi-Aventis contemplates as being proper in a reply brief. Indeed, in ruling against the petitioner in Sanofi-Aventis, the Federal Circuit specifically noted that the petitioner could have used its reply brief “to explain how [the prior art reference] is analogous to the [challenged] patent” but did not do so. 66 F.4th at 1379–1380. Here, in contrast, Petitioner used its Reply brief to explain how Linnarsson and McCloskey are analogous to the ’981 patent. Petitioner’s explanation in its Reply brief was both proper and persuasive.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“That McCloskey is what it purports to be (a journal article) and that it was published in 2007 are corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence. McCloskey names four authors, all four of whom are named inventors of US 2007/0020640 A1, published Jan. 25, 2007 (“McCloskey ’640”). Ex. 1004, 1, Ex. 2001, code (76). Patent Owner concedes that McCloskey and McCloskey ’640 involve the same subject matter, having argued that the consideration of McCloskey ’640 supported discretionary denial of the Petition based on McCloskey. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 22 (“Petitioner’s secondary reference, an article by McCloskey, is at best cumulative of the far more detailed McCloskey ’640, which was raised by the Office and substantively discussed as the basis for a potential rejection using its asserted disclosure of a polynucleotide-specific tag—the same purported teaching for which Petitioner relies on McCloskey here.”). Notably, McCloskey ’640 was published on January 25, 2007. Ex. 2001, code (43). That is just days before McCloskey was received by BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS on January 31, 2007. See EX. 1004, 1 (“Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007”). In other words, it appears that the authors sought to have their research published in a scientific journal promptly after the subject matter of their research had been published by the Office. Further, the existence of McCloskey and its publication year of 2007 is confirmed by other sources in the record. See Ex. 1029, code (56) (United States Patent identifying as a cited reference: “McCloskey, et al. Encoding Pcr products with batch-stamps and barcodes. Biochem Genet. Dec. 2007;45(11-12):761-7. Epub Oct. 23, 2007.”); Ex. 1053, code (56) (same); Ex. 1060 (article’s bibliography citing “McCloskey ML, Stöger R, Hansen RS, Laird CD. Encoding PCR products with batch-stamps and barcodes. Biochem. Genet 2007;45:761–767. [PubMed: 17955361]”). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied with respect to” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The Petition states that “Petitioner does not believe that any terms require explicit construction in view of the prior art being presented.” Pet. 36. Despite this stated position, Petitioner proposed constructions for “multiplex-identifier (MID)” and “providing a sample.” Id. Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, stated that it “agrees that at this time, solely for purposes of an institution decision on the Petition, no terms require explicit construction.” Prelim. Resp. 45. In instituting the IPR, we found no need to provide an express construction of any claim term. Inst. Dec. 6. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner repeats that it “does not believe any term needs construction,” but nonetheless “applies the Petition’s definitions for ‘MID’ and ‘sample.’” PO Resp. 19. The Petition defines MID as “‘a tag or combination of tags associated with a polynucleotide whose identity (e.g., the tag DNA sequence) can be used to differentiate polynucleotides in a sample.’” Pet. 36 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:33–38). The Petition defines sample as “‘a quantity of material from a biological, environmental medical, or patient source in which detection, measurement, or labeling of target nucleic acids is sought.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:7– 10). We apply these same definitions in our analysis.” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 10,155,981 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,155,981 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00275 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22–24, 44, and 46 based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Determining whether to institute has been delegated to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Accordingly, we grant the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“argues that we “should exercise . . . discretion to deny institution of Ground 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” Prelim. Resp. 8 (emphasis added). However, we do not institute on a ground-by-ground basis. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”); see also SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding that the Director’s prior “partial institution practice” was contrary to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). Even assuming Patent Owner requests that we exercise discretion to deny the entire Petition, its discretionary denial arguments could not support such a request because those arguments are limited to Ground 1. Patent Owner does not argue or present any basis for exercising our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as to any of the additional grounds. And, as discussed below, there is a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in at least one of those additional grounds. For this reason alone, discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not warranted.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“step [b], i.e., “contacting a treatment element of the treatment device with mucosal tissue in the patient’s nasal airway,” as recited in claim 9. Prelim. Resp. 17; see Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). As will become apparent from Patent Owner’s arguments, central to the dispute between the parties is Petitioner’s mapping of Gertner to limitation [b] and, in particular, to the recited “treatment element.” In Petitioner’s view, Gertner’s distal end 216 and expandable component 218 together form the recited “treatment element.” As Petitioner explains it, Gertner discloses that “the distal end 216 emits light from ‘within’ the expandable component 218, such that the light emitter and expandable component 218 (which together constitute distal end 216) act as a treatment element.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶103, 106, 107; Ex. 1002 ¶64). Petitioner further points out, with supporting evidence, that the expandable component contacts mucosal tissue. Id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶37, 103).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Edwards-535. Pet. 61–64. Claim 16 recites: “A method as in claim 9, wherein adjusting the shape comprises forming at least one bend in a shaft of the treatment device.” For this additional subject matter, Petitioner points us to the bend in the structure that is designated with reference numeral 124 in Edwards-535, as illustrated in Figure 3B. Pet. 61–62. Petitioner also argues, with supporting evidence, that, even absent this disclosure, it would have been obvious to form a bend, as it is well known in the art to provide bendable catheters to facilitate insertion of a medical device. Id. at 62–64 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶130–132). Patent Owner’s sole argument is Edwards-535 fails to disclose limitation [b] of claim 9, from which claim 16 depends. Prelim. Resp 31– 32. That argument is not persuasive for reasons already discussed. Although we have already held that the single-claim threshold of § 314(a) has been met with respect to independent claim 9, we nonetheless further determine that there is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in showing that dependent claim 16 would have been obvious over Edwards-535.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,072,597
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.