- Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00399 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Dill, Vadhri, and Akashika because Dill did not teach or render obvious the hardware SIM card and integration tier limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Institution Decision, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of work experience in software development with a basic knowledge of accounting” and “working knowledge of mobile payment systems and techniques,” as Petitioner proposes. Inst. Dec. 9 (quoting Pet. 3–4). We stated that “this definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’488 patent and the asserted prior art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22; Ex. 2001 ¶ 35).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“In addition, Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Houh’s testimony (see Pet. 23–24) is unavailing. Although Dr. Houh agrees with the arguments in the Petition and includes quotes from the cited portions of Dill and Bykov (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 95–97), he provides no additional analysis or explanation beyond what was provided in the Petition. As a result, his testimony suffers the same deficiencies as the Petition. Also, we do not credit his conclusion that Dill includes the requisite disclosure (see id. ¶ 97) because he fails to provide sufficient supporting explanation or evidence (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). Finally, we note that Petitioner misrepresents Dr. Shamos’s testimony by stating that Dr. Shamos “agrees that if a mobile device executes a mobile wallet over a cellular network, the mobile device has a SIM card for the mobile wallet.” Pet. Reply 22 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1022, 29:4–7, 40:9–10). In the cited testimony, Dr. Shamos agrees that mobile devices have SIM cards, but he does not address where a mobile wallet application would be installed. Ex. 1022, 29:4–7, 40:9–10. Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, we determine that Dr. Shamos’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“for the term “hardware SIM card” because the important points are undisputed. In particular, the parties agree that a “hardware SIM card” is a SIM card implemented in hardware rather than software. See Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶ 36); Tr. 40:25–41:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel explaining that the language in its proposed construction was “to differentiate it from a software SIM card”); see also PO Resp. 16, 19 (asserting that the term refers to a specific type of hardware, namely a “chip” or a “smart card”) (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 32–33). The parties also agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “SIM card” is a component in a mobile device involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. See Tr. 30:23–31:3 (Petitioner’s counsel stating “a SIM card, just as known in the art . . . would allow the user to be able to access the mobile network” 10 Each page in Exhibit 2021 includes at least two page numbers. For clarity, we refer to the page number of the exhibit (shown in the bottom right corner), and we have adjusted Patent Owner’s citation accordingly. given “the user’s identification information on it”), 39:24–40:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating that “I think everyone is in agreement that the critical aspect of what makes a SIM card a SIM card is that it can authenticate a mobile device to a wireless network”). The evidence supports the parties’ understanding. The word “SIM” is an acronym for “subscriber identity module” (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:58–67; Ex. 2021, 5), and the record shows that a SIM is a specific component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network (see Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 30–31; see also e.g., Ex. 2021, 7 (stating that a SIM’s “primary function” is “to authenticate the subscriber to the network”); Ex. 2025, 3 (describing the SIM)).11 Consequently, we determine that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood a “hardware SIM card” to be a hardware component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. We do not need to further construe the term, or determine whether the additional requirements proposed by Patent Owner are appropriate, because Petitioner fails to show that the prior art teaches or suggests the claimed “hardware SIM card,” as explained below. See infra § II.D.2.a (analyzing the parties’ substantive contentions).” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Dill discloses “a mobile wallet application installed on a hardware SIM card,” as required by element 1.3B. See Pet. 23–24. In particular, even assuming that Dill teaches installing a mobile wallet application somewhere on a mobile device (see Pet. 23),14 Dill does not teach installing it on a hardware SIM card,15 as specifically required by the claim. Petitioner relies upon paragraph 106 of Dill (see Pet. 23), but that paragraph does not disclose this claim limitation (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 106). In relevant part, that paragraph of Dill simply states: 14 Patent Owner disagrees with this premise, arguing that Dill does not disclose a mobile device that includes a mobile wallet application. See PO Resp. 52–56. We need not resolve that dispute because, even assuming Petitioner’s premise (as we have done in this Decision), Petitioner still fails to show that the claims are unpatentable. 15 As noted above, a “hardware SIM card” is a hardware component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. See supra § II.C.1 (addressing meaning of term). It should also be appreciated that the methods described above may be performed by hardware components or may be embodied in sequences of machine-executable instructions, which may be used to cause a machine such as a general-purpose or special-purpose processor or logic circuits programmed with the instructions to perform the methods. These machine-executable instructions may be stored on one or more machine readable mediums, such as CD-ROMs or other type of optical disks, floppy diskettes, ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, flash memory, or other types of machine-readable mediums suitable for storing electronic instructions. Alternatively, the methods may be performed by a combination of hardware and software. Ex. 1005 ¶ 106 (emphases added). This teaches storing instructions on “other types of machine-readable mediums,” but it fails to teach storing instructions on a hardware SIM card, much less storing Dill’s mobile wallet application there. In short, Dill is silent with respect to this issue, and silence is not disclosure. Notably, Petitioner does not contend (or show) that a mobile wallet application installed on a mobile device would necessarily be installed on a hardware SIM card. See Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–97. Indeed, the record indicates that a mobile wallet application installed on a mobile device could instead be installed on a different component. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:1–3, 9:33–35 (identifying device memory as alternate component); Ex. 2021, 5 (describing SIM as the “smaller of two computer chips inside a GSM mobile handset”); cf. Pet. Reply 9 (distinguishing between hardware SIM cards and software ones). Thus, Petitioner fails to show that this claim limitation is inherent in Dill. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that inherency requires a showing that “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present”).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,208,488 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,208,488 - Mediatek Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00150 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5 on all four asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Gibson and Schiltz combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“As set forth in the Director’s Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (dated June 21, 2022), at 7, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR . . . in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Petitioner’s stipulation (Ex. 1025) satisfies the language from the Director’s Memorandum quoted above. Therefore, we need not analyze each Fintiv factor to reach the determination that we will not exercise our discretion to deny institution in view of the parallel Western District of Texas Litigation.” slip op. at 14
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We disagree. The Petition is clear that it presents alternative challenges where Goldberg, Thacker, ITU-T J.83, and/or AAPA are added to the combination of Gibson and Schiltz or are added to Crols, if the term “cable modem,” recited in the preamble of claim 1, is determined to be limiting. Pet. 6–7. In the context presented here, “and/or” clearly means one or more of the four additional references. And Petitioner’s reliance on one or more of the additional references is clear in the context of the issues before us based on Petitioner’s analysis of the preamble of claim 1, where Petitioner clearly states, “[a]nd to the extent that the preamble is limiting and requires a ‘cable modem,’ it would have been obvious to use the modem of Gibson (as modified by Schiltz, discussed below) as a cable modem, in view of Thacker, Goldberg, ITU-T J.83, and/or AAPA.” Pet. 42 (Ground 1); see id. at 66–67 (similarly asserting, in the context of Ground 2, that, “[t]o the extent that the preamble is limiting and requires a ‘cable modem,’ it would have been obvious to use the modem of Crols as a cable modem, in view of Thacker, Goldberg, ITU-T J.83, and/or AAPA”). Petitioner also includes a discussion as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “use the modems of Gibson modified with Schiltz (Ground 1), and Crols (Ground 2), as ‘cable modems,’ in view of the DOCSIS References (Thacker and Goldberg), ITU-T J.83, and AAPA,” and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing. Id. at 37–40. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the Petition lacks particularity and we find that the Petition clearly sets forth the alternative combinations discussed above such that Patent Owner has a fair opportunity to respond.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“l. Summary as to Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above, on the present record we find that Petitioner has established that the combination of Gibson and Schiltz teaches each of the elements of claim 1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these two references as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 40
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is identical to the level of skill that we found applicable in the final written decision in the TCL IPR. See IPR2021-00985, Paper 44 at 13. We see no reason to deviate from our previous finding, which is now further supported by Dr. Larson’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’835 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,292,835 - PTAB · May 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00352 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims were obvious over Woods and over Woods with Machida.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Sotera stipulation must be filed in the two parallel district court cases. See Prelim. Resp. 13–16. This same argument was raised previously in another proceeding before the Board. See Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Alidouble, Inc., IPR2023-00369, Paper 7 at 10 (PTAB July 12, 2023) (Institution Decision) (declining to discount petitioner’s stipulation because petitioner did not file it in the district court). In Taiwan Semiconductor, patent owner urged the Board to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 314(a) in light of a parallel district court litigation because, in part, petitioner had not filed the stipulation in the district court. Id. at 9. The Board disagreed and found that the Director’s Memo does not require that such a stipulation be filed in the district court, only that the petitioner must “stipulate[]” or “present[] a stipulation.” Id. (citing Director’s Memo at 3, 7). Here, we agree with the Board’s reasoning in Taiwan Semiconductor case, and we understand the Director’s Memo as only requiring Petitioner to “stipulate[]” or “present[] a stipulation.” The Director’s Memo is silent regarding any requirement for Petitioner to file a stipulation in the district court case where Petitioner is a party. Director’s Memo at 3, 7. Even if arguendo Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation should also be filed in district court, here Petitioner did file a “Notice of Sotera Stipulation” in the district court case where Petitioner is a party. Ex. 1012. This Notice states that “[LG] hereby stipulate[s], consistent with the stipulation made by the [p]etitioner in Sotera that, if the PTAB institutes an IPR in response to [LG’s] petition against [Multimedia’s] U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174 (IPR2024- 00352), [LG] will not pursue in this litigation the grounds raised or any other grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB in that instituted proceeding.” Id. at 2. Consequently, the purpose of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation has been achieved here because it “mitigates any concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board, as well as concerns of potentially conflicting decisions.” Sotera, Paper 12 at 19 (citing Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 12 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (Decision Granting Request for Rehearing) (informative)). Although Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation would have little, if any, impact on the district court case where Vizio is a party (see Prelim. Resp. 16–17), the Director’s interim guidance does not condition or otherwise qualify the effect of a Sotera stipulation on our exercise of discretion to deny this Petition based on any remaining defendants in the parallel district court cases that are not subject to the stipulation (see Director Memo at 7, 9). Put simply, Petitioner has filed a Sotera stipulation in this proceeding and, as a result, we will not exercise our discretion to deny its’ Petition.” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of independent claim 1 would have been obvious over Woods, considered as a single reference under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).” slip op. at 35
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose claim construction for any term, although it identifies two terms it contends are defined in the Specification of the ’174 patent. Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s statements on claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 30. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent necessary for institution, we note a disagreement between the parties regarding the term “application panel” in claims 1 and 10, and address it below. See infra § VI.A.10.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“the operation panels of Machida to be relevant to a television environment,” and that Machida performs panel selection automatically and not as a direct result of user selection, and therefore Machida “teaches away from combining Machida with Woods, particularly with respect to the panels described in Woods.” Prelim. Resp. 39. But Machida expressly describes a television environment in paragraph 35, which explicitly contemplates “TV type services, data broadcasting services, and data added TV services.” Moreover, we preliminarily are of the view that Patent Owner is imputing an overly narrow construction to at least claim 1 regarding the term “panel,” as discussed supra. Further, a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For at least these reasons, we preliminarily find that Petitioner’s arguments regarding claims 1–14 under Ground 3 over Woods and Machida are sufficient at this juncture.” slip op. at 39
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,247,174 - PTAB · May 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00351 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 11–16, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“On June 21, 2022, the Director issued interim guidance in the form of a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors. See Director Memo. Notably, the Director stated that “the PTAB [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the PTAB.” Director Memo at 3. With this interim guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this proceeding under Fintiv because LG filed a Sotera stipulation in both this proceeding and the district court case where LG is a party. Pet. 93; Ex. 1014.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on the preliminary record, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. 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 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the preliminary record, we are persuaded that LG has presented sufficient evidence that would support a finding that Kim teaches “wherein at least one of the sources is highlighted as being associated with the first content information.” Pet. 46–48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 211, 228; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 133–142). Kim discloses that, “[u]pon receipt of an incoming call,” smart TV 100 automatically displays PHONE card object 1390 on display 180. Ex. 1005 ¶ 211. If the incoming call is received while PHONE card object 1390 is already being displayed on display 180, “[PHONE card object 1390] may be highlighted or otherwise distinguished from the other card objects.” Id. This is consistent with another passage in Kim, which discloses distinguishing active card objects from partially displayed card objects using “color, tint, brightness, shading, fading, or another appropriate characteristic.” Id. ¶ 228 (emphases added). In our view, these cited disclosures in Kim collectively teach or suggest that, when smart TV 100 actively displays a card object (e.g., PHONE card object 1390), it distinguishes the active card object from other card objects presented on display 180 by using highlighting.” slip op. at 29
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,510,040 - PTAB · May 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00354 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 10, and 17 are obvious over Melnychenko and Chen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors. See Director’s Memo. Notably, the Director stated that “the PTAB [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the PTAB.” Director’s Memo at 3.” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’805 patent “would have been someone knowledgeable about and familiar with the television display technology that is pertinent to the ’805 patent. A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of television systems and networking, human-computer interaction, or related technologies. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). At this stage, “Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) for the purposes of [its] Preliminary Response.” Prelim. Resp. 28. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’805 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner states “no claim term requires express construction” (Pet. 9) but further states some claim terms are provided with explicit definitions in the specification (Pet. 9–10). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s statement on claim construction for the purposes of [its] Preliminary Response.” Prelim. Resp. 29. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We note, however, that, in our obviousness analysis below, we address the scope and meaning of the claim terms “pre-defined format” and “uniform format,” as those terms pertain to the combined teachings of Melnychenko and Chen, as contested by the parties.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,419,805 - PTAB · Apr 19, 2024 · IPR2024-00110 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 4–6 based on the § 103 ground combining Kim, Invisalign, and Salah.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“§ 325(d), the Board uses a two-part framework: (1) determining whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying the two-part framework, we consider several non-exclusive factors, including:” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would typically have an advanced degree, such as a Masters’ Degree or Ph.D. in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of work in computer vision, image analysis, medical imaging, or related areas.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner also contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of these fields” and “could be a member of an interdisciplinary team.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 16. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, and, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. 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))). As noted above, at this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposals. After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly address Petitioner’s contentions for step 3 of claim 1 for purposes of this Decision. For purposes of providing guidance to the parties, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner’s construction of “interior tooth outline” and “exterior tooth outline,” as supported by the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 5:8–15; Ex. 1004, 241–242 (Patent Owner stating “[a]s specified at page 7, lines 3–10, of the subject application, the interior tooth outline qualifies a line which delimits the free end of a tooth on an image and the exterior tooth outline qualifies a line which delimits part of the aligner on an image”). We also preliminarily agree with Petitioner, on this record, that step 2 of claim 1 recites a conditional limitation, that, if met, is not needed to be performed. See, e.g., Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat’l Arbitration Forum, 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“It is of course true that methods steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.”). This is supported by the Specification: In one embodiment, the dentition image is the aligner image. In other words, the same updated image makes it possible not only to see the aligner outline 28 but also to see the dentition outline 16, through the aligner (FIG. 3). This single image therefore makes it possible to compare aligner 20 and dentition outlines. Advantageously, readjustment step 2), described later, is not needed. Ex. 1001, 6:15–20. These constructions are preliminary and based on the current record. The parties may further address these issues during trial.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369. Therefore, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how the proposed combination of prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combination of prior art. slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,109,945 - PTAB · Apr 19, 2024 · IPR2024-00052 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 13–16 because Align showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Kim, Invisalign, Salah, and Maninis.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“On June 21, 2022, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a Memorandum titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Memorandum”),6 which states, among other things, that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Memorandum 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Previously presented art includes art made of record by the Examiner, and art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8. There is no dispute that Salah was of record during prosecution of the ’248 patent. Ex. 1001, code (56). There is no evidence, however, that the Examiner substantively considered Salah during prosecution. Nor is there any evidence that Kim, Invisalign, and Maninis were of record during prosecution or that the Office considered the Kim, Invisalign, Salah, and Maninis combination proposed by Petitioner. Although Patent Owner appears to argue that the disclosure in Kim, Invisalign, and Maninis is cumulative to disclosure in the ’248 patent, Patent Owner does not meaningfully explain how the references asserted (i.e., Kim, Invisalign, and Maninis) are cumulative of the references cited during prosecution in light of this disclosure in the ’248 patent. For example, in the Reasons for Allowance, the Examiner stated that the references cited (Matov and Wen) do not teach or suggest the limitations “more than 1 week after the start of the treatment with the aligner, acquisition of at least one image at least partially representing the aligner in a service position in which it is worn by a patient,” “tooth attribute relating to a separation between the tooth represented by the analysis tooth zone, and the aligner represented on the analysis image,” and “a cellphone is used to acquire the analysis image.” Ex. 1004, 960–961. Petitioner relies on Kim, Invisalign, and Salah to teach these limitations, see Pet. 28–41, and argues that the missing elements identified by the Examiner are found in these prior art references, so they are not cumulative. Id. at 61. On this record, we are not persuaded otherwise, as Patent Owner does not address all of these limitations, or explain how Kim, Invisalign, or Maninis are cumulative of the references considered by the Examiner (Matov and Wen), and thus, does not sufficiently support the position that the Examiner considered combinations the same as, or similar to, those presented by Petitioner. Under these circumstances, we find the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied because the Petition sets forth a combination of prior art and arguments that are not the same or substantially the same as that considered by the Examiner during prosecution. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would typically have an advanced degree, such as a Masters’ Degree or Ph.D. in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of work in computer vision, image analysis, medical imaging, or related areas.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60–61). In addition, Petitioner contends, a person of ordinary skill in the art “could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of these fields” and “could be a member of an interdisciplinary team.” Id. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 17. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, and, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. 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))). After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,049,248 - Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00045 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable over Jones and/or Doo; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable because the obviousness grounds lacked adequate motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“2. “augmentation tag” Petitioner proposes the following construction for “augmentation tag”” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Accordingly, Petitioner persuades us that Jones discloses limitation” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“reasoning why the POSITA would be motivated to combine, ‘what was known in the art at the relevant time,’ whatever that may be.” PO Resp. 42. We agree. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds 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 Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). “Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Rather, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 10,945,807 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,945,807 - PTAB · Mar 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00194 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 3–6 and 10 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 3 and 10 are obvious over Setton and Baker.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We determine that this factor weighs against discretionary denial. Some work has been completed, but the Texas litigation is in its early stages. Although infringement and invalidity contentions have been served (Ex. 1022, 5; Ex. 2002, 5), the majority of the work still remains to be completed, including the Markman briefing and order, fact discovery, and expert discovery (Ex. 2002, 3–5; accord Ex. 1022, 3).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Conclusion For the reasons provided above, Petitioner has sufficiently shown (for purposes of institution) that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Setton and Baker as proposed, and that the combination teaches, suggests, or renders obvious each limitation of independent claim 3. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but they are unavailing at this stage and on this record. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing that the subject matter of claim 3 would have been obvious over Setton and Baker.” slip op. at 34
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’099 patent and the asserted prior art. This definition is also supported by the testimony of Dr. Reddy. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 19. In addition, Patent Owner appears to agree with Petitioner regarding the educational background and number of years of work experience. Compare Prelim. Resp. 32, with Pet. 9. At this stage, given the disclosure of the ’099 patent, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s contention that the ordinary artisan would have had experience with “data networks and video streaming systems” generally, rather than “video teleconferencing systems” specifically. However, the analysis in this Decision would not have changed if we had instead adopted Patent Owner’s proposal.10” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“At this stage, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s understanding of the claim’s plain language. Elements 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 require that the “plurality of endpoints” be “configured such that a film strip with frames containing reduced-size video feeds from the conference participants is displayed at the mesh endpoints.” This language does not require that each of the endpoints supply a video feed; rather, it requires that the conference participants supply the video feeds. Also, the claim does not appear to include language that requires any of “the conference participants” to be associated with the non-mesh connected endpoint. Patent Owner assumes that “the conference participants” are the individuals participating from any and every endpoint (see Prelim. Resp. 37), but it fails to sufficiently support this understanding. According to Patent Owner, the claim’s later reference to “‘the mesh-connected conference participants’ . . . show[s] that the scope of ‘the conference participants’ is broader than just ‘mesh-connected endpoints.’” Prelim. Resp. 37; see Ex. 1001, 18:36. We disagree. Even if that claim language demonstrates that some “conference participants” are associated with mesh- connected endpoints, it does not show that the set of “conference participants” is necessarily broader. In fact, the claim language cuts the other way—the claim refers to “the mesh-connected conference participants,” indicating that this term derives antecedent basis from (and is the same as) the “conference participants” referenced earlier in the claim. Moreover, the claim later refers to “a user located at the non-mesh connected endpoint” (Ex. 1001, 18:42–43), which further indicates that the “conference participants” need not include a person associated with the non-mesh connected endpoint. Although Patent Owner points to two passages from the Specification to support its position (see Ex. 1001, 5:13–17, 17:47–49), neither suggests a particular meaning for this claim phrase. One passage describes a particular embodiment in which conference participants receive video streams “from all other endpoints” (id. at 5:13–17),11 and the other simply states that the described system allows a non-mesh endpoint to participate “in much the same way” as mesh-connected endpoints (id. at 17:47–49). In addition, we have assigned little weight to Dr. Sharony’s testimony regarding the meaning of this phrase (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 94) because he reiterates Patent Owner’s legal arguments without either providing technical background or addressing the meaning of terms to an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Philips, 415 F.3d at 1318.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,204,099 - Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 and 11–20 were not shown unpatentable: Doo did not disclose the claimed volume, the Doo-Amira combination lacked a persuasive rationale, and the other references were not shown publicly accessible.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, except that we excise part of Petitioner’s definition to produce the following modified version: a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field with several years of experience in the design, development, and study of augmented reality devices and . . . familiarity with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of data for medical procedures . . . . Our edit removes the alternative of “working with a team including someone with such familiarity” because one’s role in a team may be tangential to their personal experience with medical imaging. Regardless, had we adopted Petitioner’s original definition, our decision would not have changed.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties propose constructions for the claim terms “three- dimensional (3D) data,” “inner layer(s) of the patient,” “confined within a virtual 3D shape,” and “being having.” Pet. 11–14; PO Resp. 11–18. We do not need to construe any of these claim terms in order to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“First, neither the Petition nor Dr. Kazanzides explains how Doo’s curved plane teaches the claimed “volume.” See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 74–75 (essentially repeating the Petition). The Petition merely asserts that Doo’s image in Figure 7 “is confined within the volume of the virtual 3D shape illustrated in Figure 9,” without explaining how the shape of Figure 9 has a “volume.” Pet. 37. The Reply does no better, asserting that “Doo’s shape 532 in Figure 9 and shape 432 in Figure 7 are virtual 3D shapes.” Reply 18. This statement is conclusory and does not explain how Doo’s “false 3D” shapes have volume. Petitioner further attempts to establish that Doo’s disclosure of Figure 9’s shape 532 as “mimic[ing] the surface curvature of the patient’s body” is evidence that Doo discloses a 3D shape. Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 76). This argument, however, is unpersuasive because it takes Doo’s statement out of context. Doo explains that Figure 9’s warped “two-dimensional image 532 . . . mimic[s] the surface curvature of the patient’s body,” not that it has volume. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 76 (emphasis added). In other words, even though Doo’s shape 532 of Figure 9, when projected on a patient’s body (as in Figure 7) may appear to a surgeon like a 9 Our Institution Decision did not rely on Petitioner’s theory based on Doo Figures 7–9. We discuss our Institution Decision’s reasoning below under Petitioner’s second theory based on Doo Figures 6 and 11. half-cylinder shape having a volume, Doo’s technique avoids rendering a 3D shape like a half-cylinder (hence calling these “false 3D shapes”) because it instead simulates the body’s curvature with a mere curved two-dimensional plane. Second, we find that Doo’s curved plane does not, in fact, have a volume.10 Instead, Doo’s curved plane is a 2D plane merely “wrapped around an axis.” See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–76. As Patent Owner persuasively argued at the hearing, Doo’s curved plane is not “half of a cylinder. It’s just a wrapped piece of paper.” Tr. 33:14–15. Just as curving a piece of paper would not give the curved paper a half cylinder’s volume, neither does curving Doo’s flat 2D plane create a half cylinder with volume. Viewed another way, curving a 2D plane does not impart volume to the plane any more than curving a 1D line into a parabola would impart area to the 1D line.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that “rejections on obviousness grounds 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 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Petitioner’s argument fails this standard. Petitioner asserts a generic rationale that one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Amira to Doo “to take advantage of the visualization technology disclosed in Amira (or any similar visualization software).” Pet. 41. But Petitioner’s assertion contains no explanation why one of ordinary skill would have taken advantage of Amira’s technology in the context of Doo. Petitioner’s rationale is so vague and broad that it could be applied to combine any two references because it merely asserts that one reference would “take advantage of the . . . technology disclosed in” another. See, e.g., In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that “a finding that a combination of prior art would have been . . . ‘intuitive’ is no different than merely stating the combination ‘would have been obvious’”). This approach wholly misses KSR’s “articulated reasoning” standard. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Reply’s assertion that reducing a surgeon’s cognitive load in Doo “suggests an improvement on conventional medical imaging displays, such as disclosed in Amira,” fares no better. Reply 20. This assertion again fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Amira with Doo. For instance, Petitioner provides no explanation as to how Amira’s display would further reduce cognitive load. See Reply 19–20 (only vaguely referring to Amira’s “[t]racking capabilities [that] allow for . . . interaction with the visualization” (Ex. 1005, 14, 26)). Not only that, but Doo itself presents a solution for the cognitive load problem. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 14 (“The present invention is particularly adapted to manage the multitude of medical images needed to be viewed by a surgeon during an operation so that a surgeon is not required to look away from the patient, so that the surgeon does not have to sustain heavy cognitive loading.”). Petitioner does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would turn to yet another reference (like Amira) for an additional solution, or even what that solution would be.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,004,271 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,004,271
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.