- Apple Inc. v. Chian Chiu LiAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00560 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 6, 8–12, 14–16, and 18–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Ryu and Hodge, or Ryu, Hodge, and Stallings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner, however, has not identified any disclosure in the ’564 patent that requires an affirmative exclusion for alternative triggers when a device has only a movement sensor. To the extent the specification addresses devices using only a physical movement sensor, it does not speak to whether such devices exclude other sensors or how such devices might affirmatively exclude alternative triggers. Rather, it simply addresses how a device may use a physical movement sensor to trigger gaze detection. Ex. 1001, 6:49–66. As a whole, the described scenarios encompass a device that operates in various modes using appropriate sensors to implement a desired mode. Ex. 1001, 6:31–7:48. Thus, Patent Owner’s position on claim scope is not persuasive and we agree with Petitioner that the claims are directed to methods and devices that operate in the claimed manner, even if they could be configured to operate in a different manner. We conclude that “only after” does not require further construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, software engineering, or an equivalent degree with at least one year of experience in the fields of human computer interaction, software engineering or computer engineering in either a research or work capacity.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30–32). Petitioner adds that “this hypothetical person would have experience with user interface design, user interface/mobile device software, and user interaction techniques, or their equivalent.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the specification and in the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not otherwise challenge Petitioner’s assertions regarding Ryu and Hodge. See generally PO Resp. We find that the combination of Ryu and Hodge teaches the uncontested limitations and that skilled artisans would have had reason to make the combination as Petitioner explains. See Pet. 5–52. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions in light of the full record, and conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Ryu and Hodge renders claims 1–5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14–16, 18, and 20 obvious.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner disputes only whether Ryu teaches the claim limitation “performing gaze detection only after sensing the act,” which appears in each of the independent claims. PO Resp. 1, 6–10, 13–17. For that limitation, Petitioner relies on Ryu’s gaze detection performed after detecting the device’s physical movement. Pet. 20–24. Petitioner contends that Ryu teaches an electronic device in standby mode that requires sensed movement before changing its operating mode to active mode. Id. at 22. Petitioner contends that once the device is in active mode, it executes an application related to its front camera to determine if the user is gazing at the device. Id. at 22–24 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 8, 19:49–56; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58–59).” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 11,016,564 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,016,564 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentablePTAB · May 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01122 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 10–19, 21–30, 32, and 33 are unpatentable over Gotou and Karlsson; claims 9, 20, and 31 were not shown unpatentable under either asserted ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems” and “may work as part of a team” listing an example. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–43). In its Response, Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Pet. 10). Following Petitioner’s assertion in the Reply that Patent Owner’s declarant does not satisfy the agreed level of ordinary skill (see Pet. Reply 2–5), Patent Owner relies on Petitioner’s expert’s statement that “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience” to argue that the level of skill does not require specific industry experience and instead encompasses work in optics and imaging systems. PO Sur-Reply 1–9 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 42). We proceed with the agreed level of ordinary skill. We note that the parties’ belated dispute regarding the level of skill does not affect our analysis, as further discussed below regarding Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“solution for vehicle headlamps because, at the time of invention, LEDs produced output levels far below “typical tungsten halogen” bulbs. PO Resp. 39. Thus, argues Patent Owner, using Karlsson’s LEDs would render Gotou unsuitable for its intended purpose of adjusting illumination direction. Id. at 39–40. We do not agree. Most significantly, Karlsson is specifically directed to a motor vehicle headlight capable of varying its emitted beam. E.g., Ex. 1010, 1:3–7. And Karlsson expressly discloses that LEDs are appropriate options for its headlamp. Id. at 4:32–5:1, 14:1–4, 19:34–36, 21:13–17. In addition, Petitioner cites to multiple exhibits that support its contention that skilled artisans would have recognized the benefits of LEDs as light sources for headlamps. Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:9–15, 6:9–12, Claims 4 and 5; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 5, 7, 8, 20, 27; Ex. 1009, 19:27–29, 20:9–12, 23:8–12; Ex. 1010, 4:25–35, 13:24–29, 11:29–32; Ex. 1011, 1:18–2:3, 3:18–26, 8:13–20, 10:6–11, 10:21–22). Patent Owner counters that evidence by pointing to its expert’s declaration and to the industry’s recognition that LEDs provided less illumination than incandescent bulbs. PO Resp. 39 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 25–38; Ex. 2012, 3). Of course, evidence about an individual LED’s output does not undermine Petitioner’s combination because headlamps using LEDs, such as Karlsson’s, used many individual devices. E.g., Ex. 1010, 13:24–14:4, Fig. 6. We conclude that the weight of evidence establishes that Karlsson’s LED-based light source would have been sufficient to implement a vehicle headlamp, as disclosed in Karlsson. For the same reasons as illumination level, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding heat management and packaging are not persuasive. See PO Resp. 44–45. Because (1) Karlsson discloses a system using LEDs and (2) the challenged claims impose no specific requirements regarding Patent Owner’s asserted characteristics, we conclude that those characteristics would not have counseled against the proposed combination. See Ex. 1010, 3:34–35 (“[I]t is furthermore possible to comply with relevant national and international regulations.”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner. Claim 9 recites “the control of the second plurality of LED light sources, which naturally and logically refers to claim 8’s “control . . . a second plurality of LED light sources providing light directed towards an area including at least a portion of the other vehicle to diminish glare to a driver of the other vehicle.” Thus, the claim language’s antecedent basis establishes that claim 9’s control must also be “to diminish glare to a driver of the other vehicle.” The Petition does not identify teachings in the prior art that render claim 9’s limitation obvious under the correct claim interpretation. Nor does Petitioner’s Reply explain how the asserted combination satisfies Patent Owner’s construction, which we adopt. See Pet. Reply 23–24. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to carry its burden for claims 9, 20, and 31.” slip op. at 22
- 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. Claim 9 recites “the control of the second plurality of LED light sources, which naturally and logically refers to claim 8’s “control . . . a second plurality of LED light sources providing light directed towards an area including at least a portion of the other vehicle to diminish glare to a driver of the other vehicle.” Thus, the claim language’s antecedent basis establishes that claim 9’s control must also be “to diminish glare to a driver of the other vehicle.” The Petition does not identify teachings in the prior art that render claim 9’s limitation obvious under the correct claim interpretation. Nor does Petitioner’s Reply explain how the asserted combination satisfies Patent Owner’s construction, which we adopt. See Pet. Reply 23–24. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to carry its burden for claims 9, 20, and 31.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,208,029 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,208,029 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentablePTAB · May 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01586 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 10–19, 21–30, 32, and 33 are unpatentable over Gotou and Karlsson; claims 9, 20, and 31 were not shown unpatentable under either asserted ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems” and “may work as part of a team” listing an example. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–43). In its Response, Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Pet. 10). Following Petitioner’s assertion in the Reply that Patent Owner’s declarant does not satisfy the agreed level of ordinary skill (see Pet. Reply 2–5), Patent Owner relies on Petitioner’s expert’s statement that “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience” to argue that the level of skill does not require specific industry experience and instead encompasses work in optics and imaging systems. PO Sur-Reply 1–9 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 42). We proceed with the agreed level of ordinary skill. We note that the” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyOther
“Considering Karlsson’s statement that its emitted light beam may be produced from a “window which can shift . . . from the left to the right,” we conclude that the record better supports Petitioner’s position. In that regard, we credit Dr. Jiao’s testimony that skilled artisans would understand Karlsson to disclose a device capable of adapting its beam shape to myriad possible situations, rather than a device that illuminates all possible light sources unless detecting an oncoming vehicle. Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 51–64.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION The parties agree that no express claim construction is required. Pet. 10–11; PO Resp. 21–22. Other than two disputes discussed below regarding dependent claims, we agree that the claims do not require express construction. 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)). As to the two disputes that implicate claim scope, we discuss the relevant issues in context below. See infra at 21 (§ II.C.7), 22 (§ II.C.8).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“to the dispute here, claim 1 requires capability to “determine a light change . . . to increase light in a direction of road curvature” and control a first plurality of LEDs “to provide light based at least in part on the determined light change.” Ex. 1001, 95:66–96:8. Claim 8 requires capability to control a second plurality of light sources “to diminish glare to a driver of the other vehicle.” Id. at 97:5–14. Claim 9 recites “the control of the second plurality of LED light sources is based at least in part on third data received from a non-camera sensor of the motor vehicle.” Id. at 97:18–20. Petitioner asserts that “Gotou’s map data is not from a camera sensor” and therefore satisfies claim 9’s language. Pet. 88. Patent Owner disputes that assertion, arguing that claim 9’s control of the second plurality takes its antecedent basis from claim 8, which requires that the control be to diminish glare. PO Resp. 36. Because Gotou’s map data is used to accommodate road curvature, not to diminish glare to oncoming vehicles, Patent Owner submits that Petitioner’s proof is inadequate. Id. Petitioner responds that claim 9 recites “additional control,” not the same control from claim 8 that is limited in purpose. Pet. Reply 23–24. We agree with Patent Owner. Claim 9 recites “the control of the second plurality of LED light sources, which naturally and logically refers to claim 8’s “control . . . a second plurality of LED light sources providing light directed towards an area including at least a portion of the other vehicle to diminish glare to a driver of the other vehicle.” Thus, the claim language’s antecedent basis establishes that claim 9’s control must also be “to diminish glare to a driver of the other vehicle.” The Petition does not identify teachings in the prior art that render claim 9’s limitation obvious under the correct claim interpretation. Nor does Petitioner’s Reply explain how the asserted combination satisfies Patent Owner’s construction, which we adopt. See Pet. Reply 23–24. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to carry its burden for claims 9, 20, and 31.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 11,208,029 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,208,029 - PTAB · Apr 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00474 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1 and 2 on all four asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We find that, on the current record, Petitioner has sufficiently mapped the limitations/steps of the claims to the disclosures of Lievestro and Schneider, identified a reason with rational underpinnings why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the references, and identified that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. Based on the evidence presented at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has shown under Ground 1 that there is reasonable likelihood that at least one of the ’301 patent’s claims would have been obvious over Lievestro and Schneider.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. It appears that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’301 patent, itself. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). C.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We find that, on the current record, Petitioner has sufficiently mapped the limitations/steps of the claims to the disclosures of Lievestro and Schneider, identified a reason with rational underpinnings why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the references, and identified that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. Based on the evidence presented at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has shown under Ground 1 that there is reasonable likelihood that at least one of the ’301 patent’s claims would have been obvious over Lievestro and Schneider.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“At this stage of the proceeding we find this term is readily understandable on its face and do not find it necessary to expressly interpret this claim language.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,842,301 - PTAB · Apr 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00029 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3–5, 7–8, 10–14, and 16–25 on all grounds in the Petition, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“It is not disputed that Sim, Doi, and Herz were not previously presented to the Office. And, the prosecution record indicates that Sim and Doi were not listed on an Information Disclosure Statement by Application nor in a List of References or in an Office Action by the Examiner. See Ex. 1002, 9–10, 20–25, 69–74, 196–197, 346–347. Petitioner’s asserted Grounds 1 and 2 rely substantially on Sim and Doi to teach the steps of the claimed system and method. Petitioner’s asserted Grounds 4, 5, and 6 substantially rely on Herz. Sim, Doi, and Herz are meaningful to the prior art combinations set forth in the Petition. Therefore, the asserted combinations regarding Sim and Doi, Sim, Doi, and Waytena, and Waytena and Herz were not previously presented to the Office. It is also not disputed that Waytena was previously presented to the Office and considered by the Examiner. The prosecution history shows that throughout prosecution, the Examiner heavily considered and relied on Waytena for rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 in evaluating the application of the ՚983 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 9–10, 20–24, 69–73. At this point and based on the present record, we do not discretionarily deny under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because Petitioner has 7 The terms “POSITA,” “PHOSITA” or “skilled artisan” refer to a person of ordinary sill in the art. reasonable likelihood that at least one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. PGS Geophysical, 891 F.3d at 1360. However, based on the record before us, and because we reach the same conclusion as the Examiner regarding Waytena’s teachings, we find that Patent Owner has, on this record, sufficient support for its contentions that Waytena was previously presented to the Office and the Examiner’s evaluation on the merits regarding Waytena’s teachings was not in error.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Moreover, a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). The Board determines whether to institute a trial on behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that, at this stage based on the evidence presented, Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims and on all grounds asserted in the Petition. PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (stating that” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest or comment on Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art or offer Patent Owner’s own definition of the level of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 2. that the ’983 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’983 patent is consistent with the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends the claimed “presentation means” is a means-plus- function term under § 112, ¶ 6, that “can perform the function of (a) ‘receiv[ing] said itinerary from said computer’ and (b) ‘present[ing] said itinerary to said party.’” Pet. 8–9. Petitioner further contends the corresponding structure for performing the recited functions is display screen 130. Pet. 9. Patent Owner presents no argument against this contention. We agree that “presentation means” is a means-plus-function claim term. Because it is necessary to know what the structure and function are encompassed by the claim term in order to make a determination that the disagreement, we adopt Petitioner’s construction. Should either party believe that a different construction should apply in the instituted trial, it should explain the proposed construction, how the construction is supported by the record, and how the construction affects our unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,212,983 - Toast, Inc. v. Gratuity, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Mar 27, 2024 · IPR2023-01408 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–13 on all asserted grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Marshall.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“On balance, we determine that Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial of institution. In particular, we determine that factors 2– 4 weigh against denial of institution and factor 5, which is the lone factor favoring denial of institution, does not outweigh factors 2–4. Factor 1 is neutral. As a result, we need not decide whether Petitioner presents a compelling unpatentability challenge. See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4–5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (decision on Director review) (precedential) (“[I]n circumstances where the Board determines that the other Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial, the Board shall decline to discretionarily deny under Fintiv without reaching the compelling merits analysis.”). 7. Summary Based on our holistic view of the Fintiv factors, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Marshall (alone and with Phillips and Webb) when addressing the claims added during prosecution that ultimately issued as the Challenged Claims.” Pet. 68. As pointed out by Petitioner, “Marshall was never considered by the Examiner” against the claims that ultimately issued as claims 1–13 of the ‘050 Patent. Pet. 67, see also Ex. 1008, 263–289, 323–353. As also pointed out by Petitioner, “even when the Examiner considered Marshall” against claims that were subsequently cancelled, “he considered Marshall only as a secondary reference.” Pet. 67, see also Ex. 1008, 203–236, 263–289, 323–353. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “fails to provide an adequate explanation as to how the examiner erred.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s explanation “makes no sense,” and is “both conclusory and uncompelling.” Id. We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the Petitioner’s position, especially because it is supported by prosecution history of the ’050 Patent. (See Ex. 1008, 203–236, 263–289, 323–353.) Patent Owner also argues that the prosecution history of the ‘050 Patent “establishes that the Examiner reviewed Marshall thoroughly and applied it against the claims, some of which he rejected and other he later allowed.” Id. at 21. To support this argument, Patent Owner points to findings made by the Examiner during prosecution of the ‘050 Patent. See id. at 20. These findings, however, related to the Examiner’s rejections against claims that were subsequently cancelled. See Ex. 1008, 203–224. And these findings were made in conjunction with Marshall being applied as a secondary reference to reject those claims. See id. The Examiner rejected those claims over a combination of three prior art references (Kessler, Delany, and Tidwell), and added Marshall, in lieu of using official notice, to show that it was known in the art to configure a processor to execute computer executable instruction stored in a memory. See id. at 211–214. Thus, these findings do not contradict Petitioner’s position that overlooking Marshall as primary obviousness reference in connection with the Challenged Claims was a material error. The prosecution history does not sufficiently show that the Examiner considered Marshall, Philips, Web, or the combinations of these references asserted in the Petition, with respect to the claims that issued as the ’050 Patent. In particular, the Examiner asserted as Reasons for Allowance that the prior art did not teach” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Patent Owner argues that “Marshall fails to disclose a cloud-based computing system remote from a plurality of client business systems” as recited in independent claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 22. Per Patent Owner, the cited-by-Petitioner paragraphs in Marshall (Ex. 1004) say “nothing about ‘cloud computing,’ only data transmission.” Id. at 22–23. And, per Patent Owner, the cited-by-Petitioner paragraphs from a declaration (Ex. 1002), do not provide “any additional evidence” beyond Marshall’s cited paragraphs. Id. at 22. We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the evidence presented by Petitioner. The cited paragraphs of Marshall talk not only about data transmission, but also data transmission to remote locations via the Internet. See Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 25, 110. Also, one of these paragraphs talks about data transmission to a remote location being performed “via uploading and downloading via HyperText Transfer Protocol (‘HTTP’), Extensible Markup Language (‘XML’), and/or HTML as is known in the art.” Id. ¶ 110. The 9 The ’050 Patent says that “[i]n some embodiments, [a] point of sale system 110 and/or [an] employee records system 112 may be implemented in cloud computing systems reducing the burden on businesses to host these systems using local computing resources.” Ex. 2002, 4:65–5:2. If so, “[t]he gratuity management system 100 may be similarly implemented in a cloud computing system that interfaced with cloud-based point of sale and/or employee record systems.” Id. at 5:2–5. The gratuity management system “is contemplated to operate in conjunction with both local and cloud-based point to sale and/or employee record systems.” Id. at 4:8–11. cited paragraphs from the declaration provide additional evidence that these “communication protocols describe by Marshall (HTTP, XML, HTML) support a cloud-based infrastructure” and that “cloud computing solutions were well known and commonly used in the art by 2012.” Ex. 1002, ¶ 148. Thus, collectively, Petitioner’s evidence adequately establishes for the purposes of institution that Marshall indicates to POSITA that Marshall’s gratuity management system would be a cloud computing system remote from the plurality of client business systems.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“Patent Owner argues that “Marshall fails to disclose a cloud-based computing system remote from a plurality of client business systems” as recited in independent claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 22. Per Patent Owner, the cited-by-Petitioner paragraphs in Marshall (Ex. 1004) say “nothing about ‘cloud computing,’ only data transmission.” Id. at 22–23. And, per Patent Owner, the cited-by-Petitioner paragraphs from a declaration (Ex. 1002), do not provide “any additional evidence” beyond Marshall’s cited paragraphs. Id. at 22. We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the evidence presented by Petitioner. The cited paragraphs of Marshall talk not only about data transmission, but also data transmission to remote locations via the Internet. See Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 25, 110. Also, one of these paragraphs talks about data transmission to a remote location being performed “via uploading and downloading via HyperText Transfer Protocol (‘HTTP’), Extensible Markup Language (‘XML’), and/or HTML as is known in the art.” Id. ¶ 110. The 9 The ’050 Patent says that “[i]n some embodiments, [a] point of sale system 110 and/or [an] employee records system 112 may be implemented in cloud computing systems reducing the burden on businesses to host these systems using local computing resources.” Ex. 2002, 4:65–5:2. If so, “[t]he gratuity management system 100 may be similarly implemented in a cloud computing system that interfaced with cloud-based point of sale and/or employee record systems.” Id. at 5:2–5. The gratuity management system “is contemplated to operate in conjunction with both local and cloud-based point to sale and/or employee record systems.” Id. at 4:8–11. cited paragraphs from the declaration provide additional evidence that these “communication protocols describe by Marshall (HTTP, XML, HTML) support a cloud-based infrastructure” and that “cloud computing solutions were well known and commonly used in the art by 2012.” Ex. 1002, ¶ 148. Thus, collectively, Petitioner’s evidence adequately establishes for the purposes of institution that Marshall indicates to POSITA that Marshall’s gratuity management system would be a cloud computing system remote from the plurality of client business systems.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,741,050 - PTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00224 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 6, 9, 10, 14–16, and 22, finding compelling evidence for anticipation and obviousness challenges and a reasonable likelihood for another obviousness challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we determine that compelling evidence shows that at least claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Konishi and at least claims 1 and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Konishi in view of either Linde or McLaughlin. We also determine that a reasonable likelihood exists that claims 1 and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over McLaughlin. And because “[e]qual treatment of claims and grounds for institution purposes has pervasive support in SAS,” we institute on all the claims as challenged in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a), (c); PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018)). IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6, 9, 10, 14–16, and 22 of the ’487 patent is instituted; and” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“(1) the district court’s scheduled trial date of November 18, 2024, which falls approximately four-months before the projected deadline for a final decision here (Ex. 2003, 4); (2) the overlap of invalidity issues and the lack of a Sotera stipulation by Provisur (Ex. 2004, 3, 7; Pet. 81); and (3) the district court’s familiarity with the parties and the technology at issue due to the parallel action being the third in a line of cases between the parties dating back four years or so (Ex. 3002, 1). On the other hand, several factors weigh heavily against discretionary denial, such as: (1) the district court’s likelihood of granting a stay given it already did so for another patent, i.e., the ’109 patent, asserted by Provisur in the same action (as noted above in Section I.A) (Ex. 3001, Dkt. #95, #102); (2) the fact that the ’487 patent was only recently added to the parallel action via a counterclaim (Ex. 3002, 2) and the district court recently extended several deadlines such that fact discovery is still ongoing and expert discovery is yet to begin (Ex. 3001, Dkt. #355, #364, #365); and (3) the fact that moving forward here on the ’487 patent may greatly simplify the issues and ease the district court’s burden on what has evidently become an increasingly frustrating and complex case for the district court (see, e.g., Ex. 2001, 18:24–22:15). In the end, we find that the sum of these factors is a wash, effectively cancelling each other out and leaving us with no answer on the question of discretionary denial. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution and because Textor believes it is warranted, we will proceed with a “compelling merits” analysis of at least the Konishi-based challenges.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“conclusive, evidence that Konishi anticipates all elements of claim 1, including the “relaxing,” “tautening,” and “relative movement” limitations of disputed element 1[C2]. Contrary to Textor’s assertion, Provisur does not “completely ignor[e]” the claimed installation, i.e., “tautening,” limitation. Rather, it is Textor who ignores, and blatantly disregards, Provisur’s clear and overwhelming evidence of Konishi’s disclosure of that particular limitation, not to mention Konishi’s clear and undisputed disclosure of the other undisputed elements of claim 1. Most blatantly, Textor ignores Provisur’s detailed claim chart (as reproduced above), which clearly and concisely maps the recited “relaxing,” “tautening,” and “relative movement” limitations of claim 1 to paragraphs 33–41 of Konishi, as well as to Konishi’s Figures 8 and 9. Pet. 19. Although Textor acknowledges Provisur’s citation to Konishi’s paragraphs 33–35 for teaching the removal, i.e., “relaxing,” limitation of element 1[C2], Textor fails to acknowledge Provisur’s citation to Konishi’s other paragraphs, such as paragraphs 38–41, for teaching the “tautening” and “relative movement” limitations. See Prelim. Resp. 17 (addressing only Provisur’s citation to paragraphs 33–35 of Konishi). Those paragraphs in Konishi describe, in no uncertain terms, the process of “reassembl[ing]” the conveyor belt unit onto the subframe once “cleaning is completed.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 33–41. Textor’s complete and utter disregard of key aspects of Provisur’s reliance on Konishi is fatal to its argument that Provisur’s challenge “falls far short” of the “compelling merits” standard. Prelim. Resp. 19. The cited evidence plainly proves otherwise, indeed, to the point that Provisur is highly likely to prevail on its Konishi-based challenges. In particular, Konishi’s paragraphs 33–37 explain the removal process where “the timing belt 49 . . . becomes loose” so that the base 12 “still equipped with the conveyor belt 14 . . . can be separated from the frame 9” and “processed with predetermined cleaning,” while Konishi’s paragraphs 38–41 explain the installation process where the base 12 “is assembled to the frame 9” so that “a predetermined tension is applied to the timing belt 49.” Id.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“In other words, Textor’s sole basis for attacking the Konishi-based obviousness challenges is that the asserted combination lacks claim element 1[C2]. But, as discussed above in Section II.C.1, we reject Textor’s argument that Konishi lacks any teaching or suggestion of that claim element, instead, finding that Konishi discloses it explicitly. Thus, in the absence of any further rebuttal evidence from Textor, we find that Provisur’s Konishi-based obviousness challenges are more than strong enough on their merits to compel our review of at least claims 1 and 22.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,457,487 - Dental Recycling North America, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 19, 2024 · PGR2023-00055 · APJ Michael A Valek · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of post-grant review is authorized only when “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon considering the present record, we determine that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden to show that it is more likely than not that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of its declarant, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill (“POSA”) “would have been an individual with at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or at least 3 years of experience designing or manufacturing vacuums, filters, medical devices, or the related components.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94–95). Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s contention in its Preliminary Response, but asks its declarant to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art in his analysis. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 86. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends that “[a]ll terms of the ’175 patent should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSA,” but does not propose any express claim construction for consideration. See Pet. 22–23. Petitioner further asserts that the preambles of the independent claims are limiting. Id. at 23–25. Patent Owner argues “that claim construction is not necessary at this time,” but urges that “in the event the Board determines that claim construction is necessary, Petitioner’s proposal to construe the preambles of the independent claims as limiting should be rejected.” Prelim. Resp. 65. We need not determine whether the preambles of the independent claims are limiting to reach the outcome in this decision. Accordingly, no express claim construction is necessary here. See 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.”). D. Grounds 1–4 and Petitioner’s Related Priority Challenge” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the record before us, Patent Owner has the better position. It is well settled that the original drawings may themselves be sufficient to provide description for later-filed claims. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1565 (holding that “drawings alone may provide a ‘written description’ of an invention as required by § 112”). That is the case here with respect to the original figures submitted with the Great-Grandparent application. We agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Garris that original Figures 4A–B and 5B show a flange or “radially protruding structure” configured as in the challenged claims. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 106–113. Moreover, the original description in the Great-Grandparent application describes “removable retaining pins 13” that “ensure the recycling container,” i.e., container 12 in Figures 4A–B, “does not detach from the air-water separation tank 5 when there is no vacuum in the system.” Ex. 1002, 213 (¶ 92). Based on this description and the depiction of retaining pin 13 in the original Figure 2, a POSA would have understood that the pins engage with the radially protruding structure to hold the container in place as recited in the challenged claims. Ex. 2001 ¶ 114. Petitioner’s argument that the original figures do not depict the radially protruding structure and retaining pins working together to hold the container in place is unpersuasive. Patent Owner has sufficiently demonstrated that a POSA would have understood how the structures in original Figures 2 and 4A interact based on a side-by-side comparison of the same. See Pet. 38–43; Ex. 2001 ¶ 114. Indeed, the applicants made a similar comparison during prosecution, which proved persuasive to the Examiner. Ex. 1002, 87, 98. The Petition provides no reason to doubt that a POSA would understand the original figures and description just as Patent Owner contends. Moreover, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, the fact that the specification and drawings were amended does not mean that Patent Owner had to add new matter to overcome the Examiner’s rejections. See Pet. 16– 17. In this case, the amendments to the specification during prosecution of the ’175 patent made the operation of the retaining pin and radially protruding structure, as shown by the original figures, even clearer. But that does not mean that the original description was inadequate.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,660,175 - Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Mar 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted IPR of claims 1–4 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the preliminary construction of “transaction data.”
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“institute has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s embedded token, i.e., the output interface of the transaction card. See Ex. 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. Such claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment. We therefore do not limit the claimed “transaction data” and instead preliminarily construe that term as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. As described above, the claimed transaction data must come from the output interface of a transaction card. Should either party believe that a different construction should apply in the instituted trial, it should explain the proposed construction, how the construction is supported by the record, and how the construction affects our unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“The dispute relates to whether the ’030 application describes the claimed “smart telephone” accepting transaction data and executing coded instructions to convert the analog signal to digital data representing transaction data as digital data. See Pet. 14–15, 19–27. In Petitioner’s view, that term is supported only by language added to the “Brief Summary of the Invention” during prosecution of the application resulting in the ’286 patent. Id. at 17. In contrast, argues Petitioner, the corresponding section of the ’030 application instead describes transmitting sound to a PC, not a smart telephone. Id. at 19–26. Patent Owner submits that the ’030 application describes generating sounds from a smart phone and using a “key jack sound pass generator” to communicate sounds. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner contends that the claim language is supported by disclosure of receiving the audio signal at a microphone port and converting the signal to transaction data. Id. at 16–18. Patent Owner points also to description of direct communication between a “client device” and server. Id. at 19. On the present record, we find that Petitioner, at this stage in the proceeding, has shown sufficiently how it contends that the earliest possible effective filing date for claims 1–4 of the ’286 patent is March, 3, 2015, such that the Cho, Aaron, Carpenter, and de Geer references qualify as prior art. Patent Owner has identified a factual dispute regarding the significance of the ’030 application’s disclosures, and we view that dispute as best resolved through trial.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) provides that one of the “Requirements of Petition” is that “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” “Whether a non-party is a RPI is a ‘highly fact-dependent question’ and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.” SharkNinja Operating LLC. v. IROBOT Corp., No. IPR2020-00735, 2020 WL 6050687, at *4 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2020) (precedential) (citing Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (Paper 148) (precedential) (citing Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012))). Here, addressing whether TCH is an unnamed RPI would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315. There is no allegation or evidence that TCH is “barred or estopped from this proceeding or that Petitioner purposefully omitted [TCH] to gain some advantage.” SharkNinja at *4. Rather, Patent Owner argues that for “once again willfully fail[ing] to identify TCH as a real party in interest, . . . the Petition should be denied on that basis.” Prelim. Resp. 7. In other words, Patent Owner contends only that we deny institution because of “the alleged failure of a procedural requirement that can be corrected under our precedent.” SharkNinja at *4. We understand that” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,679,286 - PTAB · Mar 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00053 · APJ James P Calve · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds because the petition showed it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a similar discipline, with at least two years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience designing, planning, or implementing sensor networks using LIDAR, radar and/or cameras and corresponding data analysis” and “[a]dditional work or research experience can substitute for less or different education, and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18– 23). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’349 patent and the prior art of record, and we adopt it for consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “[n]o terms require construction to determine that claims 1–20 are invalid under §§ 101, 102, 103.” Pet. 9. At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the construction of any term or phrase. On the present record, we determine that we do not need to construe any claim terms to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC. v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,538,349
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.