- PTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00934 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 19–21 on all petitioned 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 Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation at 3, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. Notably, the Director stated that “the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘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 ground that could have been reasonably raised before the PTAB.” Id. With this interim guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this proceeding under Fintiv because TI filed a Sotera stipulation. Pet. 80; Ex. 1041.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“construed as “indirectly or directly connecting such that an electrical signal can flow between”; and (2) “impedance device” was construed as “a device that exhibits an impedance.” Id. at 6. Even though TI identifies four claim terms in total in the Petition, TI argues that the asserted prior art renders the challenged claims unpatentable under any reasonable construction of those claim terms. See, e.g., id. at 4 (arguing that the “prior art analyzed here renders the claims unpatentable under either [party’s] constructions” proposed in the district court case), 6 (arguing that the “prior art renders the Challenged Claims unpatentable under . . . the [Board’s] constructions”). In its Preliminary Response, ParkerVision does not address TI’s proposed constructions, nor does ParkerVision identify additional claim terms that would require construction at this stage in the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 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 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 42.4(a), we may not institute an IPR unless the information presented in the Petition and any preliminary 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Taking into account ParkerVision’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that TI would prevail in demonstrating at least one of claims 19– 21 of the ’342 patent is unpatentable. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an IPR as to claims 19–21 of the ’342 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of institution, there is sufficient evidence in the record that enables us to determine the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Galton, TI argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . as of the ’342 Patent’s priority date (April 14, 2000) would have had a least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of EM circuit design. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30). In its Preliminary Response, ParkerVision does not address TI’s assessment of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt TI’s uncontested assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’342 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,496,342 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00919 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 would have been obvious over Leaning.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“The Board’s application of these factors “is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner.” Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 2, 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). “Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors,” and if the second petitioner and the first petitioner have a “significant relationship with respect to . . . [the challenged patent],” then the Board will consider the first petition in its General Plastic analysis. Id. at 9–10.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“2. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during Resp. 14, 16–17) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][2] (see Pet. 19–21) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4–6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Leaning is substantially the same as Leaning US, which was previously presented to the Office. b. Advanced Bionics Part Two To determine whether Petitioner has shown material error, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments,” and if that record “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f).” Id. As Petitioner notes (see Pet. 69), the record regarding the Office’s” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“On this record, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning teaches that each copy of the video is divided into sub-files that correspond to different temporal portions of the video. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:20– 28, 3:5–18, p.7 (table). We are also preliminarily persuaded Leaning teaches that each sub-file represents the same fixed time period (e.g., four seconds), and that each of Leaning’s sub-files has a corresponding sub-file in the other copies. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 6:21–7:2 (including table), 12:8–20. Moreover, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning’s sub-files each have a time index because the sub-file names are sequentially numbered. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 7:1–2, 12:16–20, p. 7 (table); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 73. Accordingly, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Leaning teaches elements 1[A][3], 1[A][4], and 1[A][5].8 1[B]: “requesting by the media player a plurality of sequential ones of the files of one of the copies from the set of servers over a plurality of Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indexes;” Petitioner contends that Leaning teaches and/or renders obvious element 1[B]. Pet. 29–35. According to Petitioner, Leaning teaches that terminal 3 requests a plurality of sequential sub-files of one of the copies from server 1. Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:12–19, 2:15–18, 5:4– 6:2, 6:27–7:2, 8:6–16, 23:3–10 (claim 1), 24:28–35 (claim 11), 25:17–20 (claim 16); Ex. 1003 ¶ 79; Pet. 21–29). Petitioner also asserts that an 8 Although we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative contention that element 1[A][5] would have been obvious over Leaning, we will evaluate that contention in our final written decision if appropriate.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,868,772 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00918 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 and 12–16 would have been obvious over Leaning.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“when there is an earlier petition challenging the same patent. See General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15–16. To determine whether to deny the subsequent petition, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors (the “General Plastic factors”): 1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; 2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it; 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; 4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; 5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; 6. the finite resources of the Board; and 7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review. Id. at 16.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“when a petition presents “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments [that] previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To evaluate whether such a denial is appropriate, the Board determines: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying this two-part Advanced Bionics framework, we evaluate several non-exclusive factors, including: 13 Like the parties, we focus our analysis on Leaning. See Pet. 67–69; Prelim. Resp. 14–22; Prelim. Reply 1–4; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–4. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s Leaning-only ground meets the standard for institution, and we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative ground based on Leaning and Gamble. See supra §§ II.E–F. Moreover, the statutory purpose of Section 325(d) would not be undermined by instituting on both challenges given Gamble’s limited role in Petitioner’s ground (see Pet. 58–60) and during prosecution (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, 208). art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which petitioner relies on the prior art or patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework (i.e., whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office), and factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to the second part (i.e., “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of the prior art or arguments). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during prosecution. See Pet. 67–68. We agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 14–17) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][3] (see Pet. 20–22) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4–6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Leaning is substantially the same as Leaning US, which was previously presented to the Office. b. Advanced Bionics Part Two To determine whether Petitioner has shown material error, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments,” and if that record “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f).” Id. consideration of Leaning US is nearly silent. Neither the applicants nor the examiner discussed Leaning US, and the examiner did not use it as a basis of any rejection. Rather, Leaning US was only cited on a twenty-five page Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) along with 237 other references. See Ex. 1002, 7–31. Given the volume of the applicants’ disclosure, it would not be surprising if the examiner overlooked material information in it. Because the Office’s evaluation of Leaning US was minimal, we find that factor (c) weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution. As for factors (e) and (f), Petitioner has shown that the Office erred by” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Motivation foundInstituted
“The legal question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,407,564 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00917 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on both asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“when there is an earlier petition challenging the same patent. See General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15–16. To determine whether to deny the subsequent petition, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors (the “General Plastic factors”): 1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; 2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it; 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; 4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; 6. the finite resources of the Board; and 7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review. Id. at 16.” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“when a petition presents “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments [that] previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To evaluate whether such a denial is appropriate, the Board determines: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially 14 Like the parties, we focus our analysis on Leaning. See Pet. 59–61; Prelim. Resp. 14–23; Prelim. Reply 1–4; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–4. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s Leaning-only ground meets the standard for institution, and we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative ground based on Leaning and Ala-Honkola. See supra §§ II.E–F. Moreover, the statutory purpose of Section 325(d) would not be undermined by instituting on both challenges given Ala-Honkola’s limited role in Petitioner’s ground (see Pet. 50–52) and during prosecution (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, 81–82). and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying this two-part Advanced Bionics framework, we evaluate several non-exclusive factors, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which petitioner relies on the prior art or patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework (i.e., whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office), and factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to the second part (i.e., “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. 2. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during prosecution of related, ancestor applications. See Pet. 60. We agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 14–15, 17–18) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][3] (see Pet. 20–22) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4– 6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19– 27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“On this record, the findings from the ITC Investigation regarding objective indicia do not undermine the sufficiency of Petitioner’s obviousness showing for purposes of institution. Our preliminary record includes no evidence of long-felt need, failure of others, unexpected results, commercial success, or industry praise. In addition, Patent Owner has not yet shown a nexus between any such evidence and the claimed invention. See Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“In order to accord substantial weight to secondary considerations in an obviousness analysis, the evidence of secondary considerations must have a nexus to the claims, i.e., there must be a legally and factually sufficient connection between the evidence and the patented invention.”); see also id. (“The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.”); ZUP, LLC patentee “bears the burden of production with respect to evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness”). Patent Owner will have the opportunity during the trial to present and develop arguments that objective indicia show that the challenged claims would not have been obvious, and our final written decision will be based on the full trial record.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,757,156 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00940 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail and declining § 325(d) denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–20 of the ’234 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying this two-part Advanced Bionics framework, we evaluate several non-exclusive factors, including:” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree) and two years of experience in networking or streaming media, or a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner “disputes Petitioner’s definition,” but does not explain what it disputes. Prelim. Resp. 5. Notwithstanding, Patent Owner asserts that “resolution of such dispute is not necessary for the Board to make a determination regarding institution.” Id. 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 of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’234 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, our claim construction standard is the same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard applied by district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,991,234 - Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01164 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 and 10–20 over Morris and Ray, and claims 8, 9, and 18 over Morris, Ray, and Cox.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’375 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 27 n.8. Moreover, all of our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner asserts that the claim term “exercise use data” needs to be construed to resolve the issues raised by Petitioner. PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner asserts that exercise use data is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” Id.; Ex. 2004 ¶ 32. Petitioner disagreed with this proposed construction in its briefing (Pet. Reply 1–5) but adopted it during the oral hearing (Tr. 14:12–15:17). The parties also agree that “exercise use data” includes time, distance, and calories of a user exercising on an exercise apparatus. PO Resp. 4–5, 14; Pet. Reply 3–4. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction. As a result, we do not need to construe this claim term further.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions. See PO Resp. We find that Petitioner has established that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 16–19, 27–28; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–147, 161–163; Ex. 1004, 5:27–29, 7:11–22, 9:55–57; Paper 8 (Scheduling Order), 9 (cautioning Patent Owner that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived).” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We have considered the testimony of Mr. van der Weide, who agrees with Patent Owner (see Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35, 45–52), but we give his testimony on these points little weight. Mr. van der Weide discusses Mr. Rawls’ testimony, but he does not meaningfully discuss Ray’s disclosures. See id. As a result, he does not reconcile his opinions with the apparently conflicting portions of Ray. In addition, Mr. van der Weide’s testimony is conclusory because he does not identify evidence or reasoning sufficient to support his opinion that Ray fails to teach or suggest these aspects of the claim as discussed above. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,796,375 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,796,375 - Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01165 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Morris and Ray; the Board did not reach the alternative Ray–AAPA and Yi grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’340 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but we agree with Petitioner that these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 29 n.12. Moreover, our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends it means “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” PO Resp. 4. According to Patent Owner, the Specification of the ’340 patent defines this term. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001,6 1:43–46, 6:33–34, claims 4, 5, 17; Ex. 2004 ¶ 33). In its briefing, Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, arguing that it is “overly narrow . . . and arbitrarily excludes other forms of ‘exercise use data.’” Pet. Reply 1–2; see id. at 1–5 (further contesting Patent Owner’s proposed construction). However, during the oral hearing, Petitioner adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Tr. 14:12–15:17. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s narrower construction and assume that “exercise use data” is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” We do not need to further construe this term because Petitioner shows that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit 8 By not challenging Petitioner’s contentions as to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success, we also find that Patent Owner has waived any argument contesting these contentions. See Paper 8 (Scheduling Order), 9 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”). exercise data to a remote location, and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the combination proposed for the reasons explained by Petitioner, as set forth above.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“are contradictory and we also disagree with Patent Owner that Ray teaches away from “maintain[ing] communication between the exercise apparatus and the remote location while the user is determined by the controller not to be engaged with the operating member” as recited in claim 7. On the former point, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “improperly equates generation and reporting of exercise use data with maintaining a connection with a remote location.” See Pet. Reply 20. Petitioner previously asserted that generation and reporting of the data would stop when Ray does not detect a user, but this does not mean that the connection would also be stopped. On the latter point, “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that, to teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Patent Owner fails to point to anything in Ray that discourages or would otherwise lead one of ordinary skill in the art away from maintaining a connection with a remote location when exercise use data is not reported at that precise moment. Rather, Petitioner provides a reason with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to maintain the connection—“to avoid delays in trying to re-establish the connection once the user had come back.” Pet. 39. That position is supported by the testimony of Mr. Rawls. Ex. 1002 ¶ 186.” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 11,227,340 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,227,340 - Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01163 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Morris and Ray, with claims 10, 11, 13, and 20 also unpatentable over Morris, Ray, and Cox.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art, except that Patent Owner states that the industry experience would have been “in analyzing and/or designing exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field.” PO Resp. 15–16. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’227 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 28 n.10. Moreover, all of our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends it means “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” PO Resp. 4–6. According to Patent Owner, the Specification defines this claim term. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 51:37– 40:59–6:4). In its briefing, Petitioner disagreed with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, arguing that it is “overly narrow . . . and arbitrarily excludes other forms of ‘exercise use data.’” Pet. Reply 2–4. However, during the oral hearing, Petitioner adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Tr. 14:12–15:17. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s narrower construction and assume that “exercise use data” is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” We do not need to further construe this term because Petitioner shows that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction of it.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Morris and Ray because they provide complementary teachings and address similar objectives. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 5:41–48, 8:22–26, 11:56–61, 13:20–30; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 25, 33, 35, Abstr.; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138). Petitioner also asserts that Morris contemplates use of an optical sensor, provides exercise data and “a human analog display that mimic[s] the user’s bouncing motion,” and includes a signal processing and display system with the necessary capabilities to implement the combination. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 139–143; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32–36, 50, 56–58, claims 29–37, Figs. 6, 11–12C); see also id. at 26–27 (asserting that “including multiple sensors in treadmills was a routine and well-known task”) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 159–162). Petitioner further asserts that Ray expressly teaches that “its user validation and motivation technology could be ‘easily and affordably merged’ into a treadmill.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1004, 9:55–57) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–144). Finally, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the proposed combination because it would have improved Morris’ treadmill to add both “Ray’s motivational image that showed a thinner image of the user as the intensity and duration of exercise increased” and Ray’s ability to share exercise data with a remote location. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 7:11–22, 11:55–59, 13:50–57; Ex. 1006 ¶ 50; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138, 145); see also id. at 16 (arguing that detection of a user’s presence could provide benefits, including motivation (citing Ex. 1004, 8:22–26, 11:56–61; Ex. 1006 ¶ 25)), 41 (arguing that data transmission was “a well-known and routine task” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 188–189)). Patent Owner does not dispute these contentions. See PO Resp. We find that Petitioner has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 16–18, 26–27; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138, 140–145, 161, 189; see also, e.g., Ex. 1004, 5:27–29, 7:11–22, 9:55–57.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the testimony of Mr. van der Weide, who agrees with Patent Owner (see Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35, 60–71), but we give his testimony on these points little weight. Mr. van der Weide discusses Mr. Rawls’ testimony, but he does not meaningfully discuss Ray’s disclosure. See id. As a result, he does not reconcile his opinions with the apparently conflicting portions of Ray. In addition, Mr. van der Weide’s testimony is conclusory because he does not identify evidence or reasoning sufficient to support his opinion that Ray fails to teach or suggest these aspects of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,032,227 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,032,227 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00784 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim across the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The plain meaning of “an integrated, secure memory storing local, secured information,” as claimed, suggests an integrated, secure memory for storing information locally, wherein the information is secured. See Pet. 28, 59; see also Prelim. Resp. 19–21. Further, nothing in the Specification clearly limits or redefines “local, secured information” to “information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK,” as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 23. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification “clearly defines ‘which information is used as local secured information.’” Prelim. Resp. 22. Although Patent Owner points to an “instance” in the Specification that it alleges is such a “clear[] defin[ition]” (id.), this portion of the Specification merely shows an exemplary embodiment and not a definition. See Ex. 1001, 3:50–57. In particular, the language Patent Owner points to in the Specification provides that “[i]n this example, the sensor 108 contains three of the service block access keys 118A, D, F,” wherein “[t]he service block access keys 118 allow the sensor 108 to unlock information stored in the corresponding service blocks 112, which information is used as local secured information.” See id. (emphasis added). That is, although the referenced portion of the Specification indicates that, in an example, information stored in a “service block” can be used as “local, secured information,” nothing in the Specification limits “local, secured information” to “information stored within service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK,” as Patent Owner contends.6 Prelim. Resp. 23. Any special definition for “local, secured information” limiting it to “information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK” must be set forth in the Specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We do not discern such clarity, deliberateness, and precision to be present here.” slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “the District Court found it necessary to construe the term ‘enabled.’” Prelim. Resp. 4. In particular, we disagree that the District Court in the Samsung case provided any construction for the term “enabled.” Id. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. (citing Ex. 2002, 26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Ex. 2002, 26.7 That is, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Thus, the District Court’s determination that “hybrid device” is not indefinite did not constitute a construction of that term, much less provide a construction of “enabled” recited elsewhere in the claim. In any case, even if assuming arguendo that the referenced portion of the district court’s Memorandum indicates that a POSITA could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim (id.), nothing in the Memorandum provides a definition of “enabled” as being limited to when an application, function, or service “receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key,” as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 8. b) Means-plus function analysis Patent Owner further contends that the term “enabling” “may further be defined by way of a means-plus-function analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 8. According to Patent Owner, “§ 112, para 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting a sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Patent Owner contends that because none of “the ‘local secured information’, ‘wireless communication interface’ [and] ‘enablement signal’ provide sufficiently definite structure,” the term 7 Even if the Court’s explanation that “[a]n application, function, or service is ‘enabled’ by a PDK when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key” is an express construction, the Board is not required to adopt that construction. See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“There is no dispute that the board is not generally bound by a prior judicial construction of a claim term.”).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions. In particular, we are unpersuaded that “enabling” may be defined by way of means-plus-function analysis. Prelim. Resp. 8. As Petitioner points out, “none of the claims of the ’960 patent recite the disputed limitation in ‘means-plus-function’ or ‘step-plus-function’ format.” Prelim. Reply 2. As Petitioner contends, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Id.; see also Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Although this presumption is rebuttable and can be overcome if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure (see Raining Computing v. Samsung Electronics America, 998 F.3d 1002, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2021)), we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that claim terms “wireless communication interface,” “local secured information,” and “enablement signal” fail to recite sufficiently definite structure. That is, Patent Owner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the terms could not be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art “to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure for the claimed functions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that the terms are “not used as ‘generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions.’” Prelim. Reply 3; see Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368. As Petitioner points out, “when a ‘structure-connoting term . . . is coupled with a description of the ‘term’s’ operation’ § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.” Id.; accord Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–20 of the ’960 patent to determine whether: 1) claims 1–6, 8–11, and 14–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Dua and Giobbi ’157; 2) claims 1–7, 10, 11, and 14–19 are unpatentable under 35” slip op. at 49
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,073,960 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00783 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–20 on five obviousness grounds: Dua and Giobbi ’157; that combination with Kotola; Buer; Buer with Giobbi ’157; and Buer with Nishikawa.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–20 of the ’289 patent to determine whether:” slip op. at 46
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“secured information,” as claimed, suggests an integrated, secure memory for storing information locally, wherein the information is secured. See Pet. 26– 27; see also Prelim. Resp. 28. Further, nothing in the Specification clearly limits or redefines “local, secured information” to “information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK,” as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 27. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification “clearly defines ‘which information is used as local secured information.’” Prelim. Resp. 28. Although Patent Owner points to an “instance” in the Specification that it alleges is such a “clear[] defin[ition],” this portion of the Specification merely shows an exemplary embodiment and not a definition. See Ex. 1001, 3:43–50. The language Patent Owner points to in the Specification provides that “[i]n this example, the sensor 108 contains three of the service block access keys 118A, D, F,” wherein “[t]he service block access keys 118 allow the sensor 108 to unlock information stored in the corresponding service blocks 112, which information is used as local secured information.” Prelim. Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:43–50) (emphasis added). That is, although the referenced portion of the Specification indicates that, in an example, information stored in a “service block” can be used as “local secured information,” nothing in the Specification limits “local, secured information” to “information stored within service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK,” as Patent Owner contends.7 Id. Any special definition for “local, secured information” limiting it to “information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK” must be set forth in the Specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We do not discern such clarity, deliberateness, and precision to be present here. In view of the plain language of the claims and the Specification, we determine that the term “local, secured information” encompasses information stored locally on an integrated, secure memory, wherein the information is secured, and is not limited to information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The plain language of “hybrid device” does not suggest a requirement that the “hybrid device” comprises an integrated PDK. Further, nothing in the Specification clearly limits or redefines “hybrid device” to a device comprising an integrated PDK, as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 3– 4. Although Patent Owner contends that the District Court construed “hybrid device” as “comprising an integrated personal digital key (PDK)” (id. (citing Ex. 2001, 3)), as Patent Owner points out, the District Court’s construction was predicated on the use of “PDK” in the “hybrid device” recited in the independent claims of a family member of the ’289 patent. Prelim. Resp. 3–4. In view of the plain language of the claims and the Specification, we determine that the term “hybrid device” recited in claims 1–16 and 19 is not limited to “comprising an integrated personal digital key (PDK).” We determine no further explicit construction of this term is necessary to resolve the parties’ issues in controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“are unpersuaded that “enabling” may be defined by way of means-plus-function analysis. Prelim. Resp. 14. As Petitioner points out, “none of the claims of the ’289 patent recite the disputed limitation in ‘means-plus-function’ or ‘step-plus-function’ format.” Prelim. Reply 2. As Petitioner contends, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Id.; see also Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Although, as Patent Owner argues, this presumption is rebuttable and can be overcome “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure” (Prelim. Sur-reply 1 (citing Raining Computing v. Samsung Electronics America, 998 F.3d 1002, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2021))), we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that “PDK,” “RDC,” “enabling signal,” and “local secured information” fail to recite sufficiently definite structure. Prelim. Resp. 14–17. That is, Patent Owner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the terms could not be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art “to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure for the claimed functions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that the terms are “not used as ‘generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions.’” Prelim. Reply 3; see Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368. As Petitioner points out, “when a ‘structure-connoting term . . . is coupled with a description of the ‘term’s’ operation’ § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.” Id.; accord Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,289
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.