• Tiktok Inc. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00767 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over either asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “In view of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, we will not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Director has issued guidance stating that, when such a stipulation is presented, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of the parallel litigation. See 10 Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). 11 Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12, 18–19 (Dec. 1, 2020) (“Sotera”). Ex. 1034 (Guidance) 3. That guidance is unequivocal and dispositive of the Fintiv analysis here.” slip op. at 11

  • Other 314aDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial under § 316(b) is unavailing. The statute provides that “[i]n prescribing regulations under this section, the Director shall consider the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). However, Patent Owner identifies no regulation, rule, or Office guidance that supports its argument here. In the absence of such, we decline to apply any discretion the Director may have under § 316(b) to deny the Petition based on the policy considerations and concerns alleged by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we find that Petitioner has adequately demonstrated that the Examiner erred in a manner material to patentability. This follows from our finding that on the current record, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date earlier than December 4, 2021 and would have been obvious over Singh129 and Singh906. See infra Section III.F. We find Patent Owner’s assertion that the Examiner understood that “[a]dding the Bluetooth feature to the existing mobile application is the reason for [the] ‘incorporated reference’ in Cellspin’s disclosure” is not supported on this record, including because Patent Owner does not cite any portion of the prosecution history that reflects this alleged understanding. Prelim. Resp. 21. For the above reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny inter partes review under § 325(d).” slip op. at 17

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “3. Conclusion – Ground 1 After considering the arguments and cited evidence of record, we determine that for purposes of institution, Petitioner sufficiently shows that the combination of Hiroishi, Kahn, and Bluetooth teaches or suggests each limitation of claims 1–16, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of these references with a reasonable expectation of success. See, e.g., Pet. 16–60. Accordingly, on this record, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, and on this basis, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a).” slip op. at 49

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,659,381
• Tiktok Inc. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00768 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both obviousness grounds: Hiroishi, Kahn, Endsley, and Bluetooth; and Singh129 with Singh906.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “In view of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, we will not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Director has 9 Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). 10 Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12, 18–19 (Dec. 1, 2020) (“Sotera”). issued guidance stating that, when such a stipulation is presented, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of the parallel litigation. See Ex. 1034 (Guidance) 3. That guidance is unequivocal and dispositive of the Fintiv analysis here.” slip op. at 10

  • Other 314aDenied

    “Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial under § 316(b) is unavailing. The statute provides that “[i]n prescribing regulations under this section, the Director shall consider the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). However, Patent Owner identifies no regulation, rule, or Office guidance that supports its argument here. In the absence of such, we decline to apply any discretion the Director may have under § 316(b) to deny the Petition based on the policy considerations and concerns alleged by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 13

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “On this record, we find that Petitioner has adequately demonstrated that the Examiner erred in a manner material to patentability. This follows from our finding that on the current record, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date earlier than August 6, 2019, and would have been obvious over Singh129 and Singh906. See infra Section III.F. We find Patent Owner’s assertion that the Examiner understood that “[a]dding the Bluetooth feature to the existing mobile application is the reason for [the] ‘incorporated reference’ in Cellspin’s disclosure” is not supported on this record, including because Patent Owner does not cite any portion of the prosecution history that reflects this alleged understanding. Prelim. Resp. 21. For the above reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny inter partes review under § 325(d).” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”) would have had: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, and two years of experience in the field consumer electronics, with exposure to digital camera technology and wireless communications. Superior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa. Pet. 6–7 (citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1030 (Lett Decl.) ¶¶ 94–95). Patent Owner does not provide an explicit definition of a POSITA. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,234,121
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00734 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over the combinations of prior art identified in the eight grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Cf. PO Resp. 14 (Patent Owner stating that “[t]he analysis presented [in the Response] remains unchanged even if [Petitioner’s proposed] skill level is applied.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for certain terms concerning the cover material—“a cover formed from a dielectric material,” “a transparent substrate,” and “a cover comprising a non-conductive material”—and window terms such as “defines at least one window” and “window defined.” Pet. 7–10. Patent Owner states that it does not take a position regarding Petitioner’s offered constructions. PO Resp. 15. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the proposed combination and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making that combination. See, e.g., PO Resp. 34–35. These arguments are not persuasive at least because Patent Owner’s motivation requirement and implied definition of success are not sufficiently tied to the claimed invention. See, e.g., Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner would require a successful outcome to be “quick and efficient wireless charging.” See PO Resp. 34–35. In making these arguments, Patent Owner is improperly superimposing the purported goals and purpose of Honda, the secondary reference, onto the ordinary artisan. See, e.g., id. at 41–45. However, the intended purpose of a prior art reference does not control the obviousness inquiry. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Our reviewing court recently explained: The [motivation-to-combine] inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter to established principles, including that the claim defines the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular features of different references, e.g., to secure some benefits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorporation would be impossible or inadvisable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner’s combination yields the benefit of the addition of wireless charging capability to a biosensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that benefit to be a motivating reason to make the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 176 (Dr. Duckworth’s motivation opinion based, in part, on “Kotanagi’s own statement that its rechargeable battery can be recharged ‘in a contactless state.’”); id. ¶ 149 (Dr. Duckworth describing a motivating factor in “Honda’s teaching of a wireless receive coil near a rear opening similar to that taught in Kotanagi (where both Honda’s and Kotanagi’s openings have a cover glass)” and opining that, in the proposed modifications, “the resulting magnetic flux would pass through the cover glass, as taught by Honda”); see also Ex. 1052, 45:16–46:2 (Dr. Anthony, on cross-examination and after being asked whether wireless charging is an improvement over wired charging for a consumer watch, responding that “in some instances it could be, and in others it may not be.”). And, as to a reasonable expectation of success, Patent Owner admits that “Petitioner has presented a device configuration in which a wireless charging coil could be provided in Kotanagi’s through hole 22.” PO Resp. 54; see also id. at 3 (Patent Owner arguing that “the size of coil that could be provided in this allegedly available space would be small and would significantly limit the amount of wireless power signal transmission,” but not arguing that even Patent Owner’s purported size-limited configuration would be inoperative); see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 155–156 (Dr. Duckworth credibly testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kotanagi and Honda).” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “would limit the size and positioning of a charging coil, and that the purported combination, as characterized by Patent Owner, would result in a “significantly degrad[ed] wireless charging efficiency” of Honda’s coil. PO Resp. 41–42; see id. at 36–45, id. at 55 (Patent Owner arguing that, “given the size restrictions imposed by Kotanagi,” the housing and cover glass cannot be expanded to allow for a larger coil). Patent Owner further argues that the combination would have to be configured a certain way and that the resulting configuration would “would frustrate Honda’s goals and intended purpose.” Id. at 37–38, 40–41; see also, e.g., id. at 43–44 (Patent Owner arguing that the combination, as characterized by Patent Owner, would inject noise and interference that are contrary to Honda’s goals of quick and efficient power transmission). We do not agree with this line of argument. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The person of ordinary skill in the art is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As the Supreme Court recognized in KSR, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” 550 U.S. at 421. Dr. Duckworth persuasively testifies that, “if, under the relevant engineering trade-offs, a POSITA wanted to increase charging speed, consistent with Honda’s teachings, Honda would have provided the motivation and information to either re-size or reshape Kotanagi’s protrusion and/or cover glass to provide for a larger coil.” Ex. 1060 ¶ 346; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159 (“[I]t would have been feasible to make the second modification option discussed above: to enlarge Kotanagi’s opening and cover glass to make room for a coil behind the cover glass, surrounding the LED and PD.”); Ex. 2039, 47:5–10 (“[A] POSITA would view Honda’s teachings to either modify Kotanagi to position wireless charging coil behind Kotanagi’s cover glass or enlarge the Kotanagi’s opening and cover glass to make room for a coil behind the cover glass.”); PO Resp. 44 (Patent Owner admitting that Honda teaches that metal is inferior for power transmission and “[t]his is precisely why Honda seeks to provide glass for its rear cover.”). And, although the references express certain goals, Patent Owner does not adequately identify any disclosure in either reference that disparages Petitioner’s articulated combination. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.”). Even if, as Patent Owner argues, the proposed combination would not quickly charge the device, this is not dispositive. Dr. Anthony agrees that “[d]evices, depending on their use and their function, can benefit from either fast charge or trickle charge or a little bit of charge.” Ex. 1052, 19:3–6. “It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” Intel Corp., 21 F.4th at 800 (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[J]ust because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”). Based upon the final record before us, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider even a slow charging configuration to be a suitable option.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,942,491 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,942,491
• Tiktok Inc. v. Cellspinsoft, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2024 · IPR2024-00770 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–18 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “In view of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, we will not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Director has 8 Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). 9 Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12, 18–19 (Dec. 1, 2020) (“Sotera”). issued guidance stating that, when such a stipulation is presented, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of the parallel litigation. Ex. 1034, 3. That guidance is unequivocal and dispositive of the Fintiv analysis here.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The analyze this issue under the following two-part framework set forth in Advanced Bionics: (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 [the] 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, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8.” slip op. at 10

  • Other 314aDenied

    “Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial under § 316(b) is unavailing. The statute provides that “[i]n prescribing regulations under this section, the Director shall consider the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). However, Patent Owner identifies no regulation, rule, or Office guidance that supports its argument here. In the absence of such, we decline to apply any discretion the Director may have under § 316(b) to deny the Petition, notwithstanding its merits, based on the policy considerations and concerns alleged by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “iii. Conclusion – Grounds 1A–B After considering the arguments and cited evidence of record, we determine that for purposes of institution, Petitioner sufficiently shows that both the combination of Hiroishi, Takahashi and Bluetooth in Ground 1A and the combination of Hiroishi, Kahn, and Bluetooth in Ground 1B teach or suggest each limitation of claims 1, 2, 4–7 and 9–18,20 and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of these references with a reasonable expectation of success. See, e.g., Pet. 11– 68. Accordingly, on this record, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Grounds 1A–B, and on this basis, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a). 19 While the term “WMTP” appears in these figures, it does not seem to be defined or discussed elsewhere in Kahn. 20 At this stage, Patent Owner does not make any additional arguments against Petitioner’s showing for the dependent claims.” slip op. at 42

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,904,030
• Tiktok Inc. v. Cellspinsoft, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2024 · IPR2024-00759 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–26 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “In view of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, we will not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Director has issued guidance stating that, when such a stipulation is presented, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of the parallel litigation. Ex. 1025, 3. That guidance is unequivocal and dispositive of the Fintiv analysis here.” slip op. at 8

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial under § 316(b) is unavailing. The statute provides that “[i]n prescribing regulations under this section, the Director shall consider the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). However, Patent Owner identifies no regulation, rule, or Office guidance that supports its argument here. In the absence of such, we decline to apply any discretion the Director may have under § 316(b) to deny the Petition based on the policy considerations and concerns alleged by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of December 28, 2007 would have “had at least a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, with at least two years of relevant work experience in wireless communications and/or networking systems, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner does not dispute or otherwise respond to Petitioner’s description of a POSITA in its Preliminary Response. At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “On the current record, Patent Owner’s claim construction arguments are unpersuasive for several reasons. First, in addition to reciting a “user identifier,” claim 1 separately recites “wherein said user identifier uniquely identifies a particular user of the web service.” Ex. 1001, 11:66–67. The fact that the surrounding claim language specifies that the “user identifier” must uniquely identify a user “strongly implies” that such a requirement is not required by the term itself. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (explaining that the context in which a claim term is used “can be highly instructive” and that the fact that “the claim in this case refers to ‘steel baffles’ . . . strongly implies that the term ‘baffles’ does not inherently mean objects made of steel”); Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“the reference in some claims to a ‘registration server being further characterized in that it is free of content managed by the architecture’ strongly implies that the term ‘registration server,’ standing alone, does not inherently mean a server that is free of managed content”). Moreover, there is no need to construe “user identifier” to include a requirement that it identify uniquely a user of a web service, as in Patent Owner’s proposed construction, because that requirement is apparent from the surrounding claim language. Second, Patent Owner has not shown that the authentication requirement in its construction, i.e., that the user identifier be a “text string” that “contains sufficient information to authenticate a user of the web service,” is supported by the intrinsic record. Patent Owner’s authentication requirement is not apparent from the claim language, nor has Patent Owner attempted to show that a POSITA would have understood the ordinary meaning of “user identifier” to require such. The only intrinsic support Patent Owner cites are figures and related disclosure describing a preferred embodiment in the ’802 application.9 This disclosure uses different terms, e.g., “user preferences” and “login information,” which on this record Patent Owner has not sufficiently connected to the “user identifier” in claim 1. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 18, 23, 25–26. Even if that connection had been shown, the disclosure Patent Owner cites is permissive in nature, stating, e.g., that “user preferences may comprise authentication credentials,” and not that authentication credentials are required. Id. ¶ 23. Thus, on the current record, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to import an authentication requirement into the claims through the construction of “user identifier.”” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,862,757
• Tiktok Inc. v. Cellspinsoft, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2024 · IPR2024-00757 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5 because the Petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Aaltonen and Drescher.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “In view of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, we will not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Director has issued guidance stating that, when such a stipulation is presented, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of the parallel litigation. Ex. 1025, 3. That guidance is unequivocal and dispositive of the Fintiv analysis here.” slip op. at 8

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial under § 316(b) is unavailing. The statute provides that “[i]n prescribing regulations under this section, the Director shall consider the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). However, Patent Owner identifies no regulation, rule, or Office guidance that supports its argument here. In the absence of such, we decline to apply any discretion the Director may have under § 316(b) to deny the Petition based on the policy considerations and concerns alleged by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of December 28, 2007 “would have had at least a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, with at least two years of relevant work experience in wireless communications and/or networking systems, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner does not dispute or otherwise respond to Petitioner’s description of a POSITA in its Preliminary Response. At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed

    “On the current record, Patent Owner’s claim construction arguments are unpersuasive for several reasons. First, in addition to reciting a “user identifier,” claim 1 separately recites “wherein each user identifier uniquely identifies a particular user of the web service.” Ex. 1001, 12:10–13. The fact that the surrounding claim language specifies that the “user identifier” must uniquely identify a user “strongly implies” that such a requirement is not required by the term itself. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (explaining that the context in which a claim term is used “can be highly instructive” and that the fact that “the claim in this case refers to ‘steel baffles’ . . . strongly implies that the term ‘baffles’ does not inherently mean objects made of steel”); Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“the reference in some claims to a ‘registration server being further characterized in that it is free of content managed by the architecture’ strongly implies that the term ‘registration server,’ standing alone, does not inherently mean a server that is free of managed content”). Moreover, there is no need to construe “user identifier” to include a requirement that it identify a user of a web service, as in Patent Owner’s proposed construction, because that requirement is apparent from the surrounding claim language. Second, Patent Owner has not shown that the authentication requirement in its construction, i.e., that the user identifier be a “text string” that “contains sufficient information to authenticate a user of the web service,” is supported by the intrinsic record. Patent Owner’s authentication requirement is not apparent from the claim language, nor has Patent Owner attempted to show that a POSITA would have understood the ordinary meaning of “user identifier” to require such. The only intrinsic support Patent Owner cites are figures and related disclosure describing a preferred embodiment in the ’802 application.10 This disclosure uses different terms, e.g., “user preferences” and “login information,” which on this record Patent Owner has not sufficiently connected to the “user identifier” in claim 1. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 18, 23, 25–26. Even if that connection had been shown, the disclosure Patent Owner cites is permissive in nature, stating, e.g., that “user preferences may comprise authentication credentials,” and not that authentication credentials are required. Id. ¶ 23. Thus, on the current record, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to import an authentication requirement into the claims through the construction of “user identifier.”” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,756,336
• Tiktok Inc. / Byedance Inc. et al. v. Cellspinsoft, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2024 · IPR2024-00769 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–15 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “In view of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, we will not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Director has issued guidance stating that, when such a stipulation is presented, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of the parallel litigation. Ex. 1034,8 3. That guidance is unequivocal and dispositive of the Fintiv analysis here.” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “Section 325(d) provides discretion to “reject the petition” if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The analyze this issue under the following two-part framework set forth in Advanced Bionics: (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 [the] first part of the framework is 9 Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8.” slip op. at 12

  • Other 314aDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial under § 316(b) is unavailing. The statute provides that “[i]n prescribing regulations under this section, the Director shall consider the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). However, Patent Owner identifies no regulation, rule, or Office guidance that supports its argument here. In the absence of such, we decline to apply any discretion the Director may have under § 316(b) to deny the Petition, notwithstanding its merits, based on the policy considerations and concerns Patent Owner alleges.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner alleges a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, and two years of experience in the field of consumer electronics, with exposure to digital camera technology and wireless communications. . . . Superior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 94–95). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s proposal is supported by the Lett Declaration and is consistent with the ’766 patent. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,900,766
• Tiktok Inc. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2024 · IPR2024-00760 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is obvious over Aaltonen and Drescher.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “In view of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, we will not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Director has issued guidance stating that, when such a stipulation is presented, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of the parallel litigation. Ex. 1023,8 3. That guidance is unequivocal and dispositive of the Fintiv analysis here.” slip op. at 14

  • Other 314aDenied

    “Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial under § 316(b) is unavailing. The statute provides that “[i]n prescribing regulations under this section, the Director shall consider the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). However, Patent Owner identifies no regulation, rule, or Office guidance that supports its argument here. In the absence of such, we discern no discretion under § 316(b) to deny the Petition based on the policy considerations and concerns Patent Owner alleges.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner alleges a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, with at least two years of relevant work experience in wireless communications and/or networking systems, or equivalents thereof. []. Superior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa. []. Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s proposal is supported by the testimony of Dr. Traynor and is consistent with the ’260 patent. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “On the current record, Patent Owner’s claim construction arguments are unpersuasive. First, Patent Owner has not shown that the authentication requirement in its construction is supported by the intrinsic record. Patent Owner’s proposed construction requires that the user identifier be a “text string” that “contains sufficient information to authenticate a user of the web service.” Prelim. Resp. 35. Patent Owner’s authentication requirement is not a part of the claim language, nor has Patent Owner attempted to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ordinary meaning of “user identifier” to require such. Authentication does appear in the ’260 patent in the context of BT. Specifically, BT “can crypto graphically authenticate the identity of another BT device.” Ex. 1001, 3:61– 63. Authentication of the user does not appear in the specification. The only intrinsic evidence support Patent Owner cites are figures and related disclosure describing a preferred embodiment in the ’802 application.9 The disclosure uses different terms, e.g., “user preferences” and “login information,” which on this record Patent Owner has not sufficiently connected to the “user identifier” in claim 1. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 18, 23, 25–26. Even if that connection had been made, the disclosure Patent Owner cites is permissive in nature, stating, e.g., that “user preferences may comprise authentication credentials” and not that authentication credentials are required. Id. ¶ 23. Thus, on the current record, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to import an authentication requirement into the claims through the construction of “user identifier.”” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,898,260
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00634 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6–8, 11–13, and 16 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Cf. PO Resp. 16 (Patent Owner stating that “[t]he analysis presented [in the Response] remains unchanged even if [Petitioner’s proposed] skill level is applied.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s position to be persuasive. Not only are the cover and biosensor module recited separately in the list of components of the device of claim 9, we also agree that the “disposed over” claim language establishes the configuration of two separate components relative to each other. Additionally, the claim language that requires the cover to be “configured to pass optical signals to and from the biosensor module” supports an interpretation where the cover is separate from the biosensor module, otherwise it seemingly would be passing signals to and from itself. The understanding that the cover is separate from the biosensor module in claim 9 is consistent with the Specification’s description of an embodiment that tracks the language of claim 9 and speaks of the two elements as separate, individual components, namely the statement that “[a] biosensor module may be disposed within the opening of the housing” and “[a] rear cover may be disposed over the biosensor module.” Ex. 1001, 2:59–62; see also id. at 2:56 (the same paragraph beginning with “Some embodiments . . .”). Petitioner asserts that its proposed construction is consistent with the claim language, arguing that “the word ‘cover’ naturally suggests that its role is to be ‘disposed over,’” and that “[a] cover can be part of a module just as a clear plastic lid can be both disposed over, and part of, a container, allowing a view of its contents.” Pet. Reply 4. We disagree with Petitioner’s analogy. Although a clear lid may be over a jar, it cannot be said to be “disposed over” the container consisting of both the jar and the lid because it then would be disposed over itself.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner argues that the proposed combination will result in a configuration “that is contrary to Honda’s teachings and its stated goals and purpose of achieving quick and efficient wireless charging.” PO Resp. 30– 31. Patent Owner’s focus on these properties is misplaced. We agree with Petitioner that characteristics such as charging speed and efficiency are not claimed. See Pet. Reply 1 (“[T]he ’783 patent does not disclose, let alone claim, sizing or other details [Patent Owner] Apple asserts are necessary for successful wireless charging.”); id. at 6 (“[C]harging speed [is] not claimed.”). Rather, the claim drafter utilized broad language to encompass a biosensor device having the capability to wireless charge through a cover— both good configurations and those that Patent Owner argues are inferior. And, even if the proposed combination does not yield a commercially viable product, as Patent Owner implies, the broad claim scope would hinder an innovating competitor’s ability to utilize and test that purported less desirable combination on the way to development of a better device. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the proposed combination and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making that combination. See, e.g., PO Resp. 31. These arguments are not persuasive at least because Patent Owner’s motivation requirement and implied definition of success are not sufficiently tied to the claimed invention. See, e.g., Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner would require a successful outcome to be “quick and efficient wireless charging.” See PO Resp. 31. In making these arguments, Patent Owner is improperly superimposing the purported goals and purpose of Honda, the secondary reference, onto the ordinary artisan. See, e.g., id. at 37–41. However, the intended purpose of a prior art reference does not control the obviousness inquiry. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Our reviewing court recently explained: The [motivation-to-combine] inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter to established principles, including that the claim defines the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular features of different references, e.g., to secure some benefits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorporation would be impossible or inadvisable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner’s combination yields the benefit of the addition of wireless charging capability to a biosensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that benefit to be a motivating reason to make the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 121 (Dr. Duckworth’s motivation opinion based, in part, on “Kotanagi’s own statement that its rechargeable battery can be recharged ‘in a contactless state.’”); id. ¶ 127 (Dr. Duckworth’s describing a motivating factor in Honda’s explanation “that this [charging] station passes wireless power to the wireless charging receiving coil through a rear cover glass (similar to that of Kotanagi), using the physics of induced currents and magnetic flux.”); see also Ex. 1052, 45:16–46:2 (Dr. Anthony, on cross-examination and after being asked whether wireless charging is an improvement over wired charging for a consumer watch, responding that “in some instances it could be, and in others it may not be.”). And, as to a reasonable expectation of success, Patent Owner admits that “Petitioner has presented a device configuration in which a wireless charging coil could be provided in Kotanagi’s through hole 22.” PO Resp. 56; see also id. at 3 (Patent Owner arguing that “the size of coil that could be provided in this allegedly available space would be small and would significantly limit the amount of wireless power signal transmission,” but not arguing that even Patent Owner’s purported size-limited configuration would be inoperative); see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–133 (Dr. Duckworth credibly testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kotanagi and Honda).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,627,783 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,627,783
• Orthocision, Inc. v. PTL Opco LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00625 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted § 103 ground because Petitioner did not adequately explain how or why the prior art would be combined.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not specifically address Petitioner’s proposed definition. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Bovinet, uses a slightly different, but not materially so, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan than Petitioner. See Ex. 2005 ¶ 13. Thus, the parties appear to agree on who the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been in terms of education and field of work experience. We accept and adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’129 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “3. Summary on Claim Construction We maintain our earlier constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . .” See DI 16–24. We determine that no other express construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. Although we maintain here our constructions of “open tip” and “releasing means . . . ,” we do so only for the sake of completeness. These claim constructions, ultimately, are not determinative of the outcome of this proceeding because, regardless of the meaning of any claim term, including these disputed terms, we find that Petitioner fails to adequately explain why any claim would have been obvious under the asserted grounds. We explain this in detail below. C.” slip op. at 29

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1001, 6:28–38 (emphasis added). However, the language of claim 1 is very clear on the functionality of the “open tip,” expressly reciting that “the open tip cuts bone tissue away from the sacrum or the ilium.” Id. at 13:19– 20. Thus, the claim language itself provides the required functionality of the “open tip,” and we do not agree with Petitioner that additional functionality relating to where bone tissue might go once cut, as discussed in the Specification, should be read into the claims as a limitation. Patent Owner’s newly proposed interpretation is similar to Petitioner’s in that it requests addition of functionality discussed as an example in the Specification, but not recited in the claim’s expressly recited functional language relating to the “open tip.” We disagree with Patent Owner that the concept of dislodged tissue entering a void defined by the open tip is necessary to understanding the claim element. And, once more, Patent Owner reads too much structure from the written description into the claim language as a limitation because it is not apparent that the recited “open tip” language requires that we further clarify that any interior void defined by the open tip is on the interior of the abrading head, and behind the exterior abrading surfaces, or between interior surfaces of a first pair of opposing sides, as proposed by Patent Owner. “[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification . . . , it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims. . . . [T]he claims define the invention.” Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581–82 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “A claim limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or pre- AIA § 112 ¶ 6) if, as here, it explicitly uses the term “means” and includes functional language; this presumption is overcome if the limitation further includes the structure, material, or acts necessary to perform the recited function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Here, the word “means” is recited, followed by functional language, and the claim recites no structure associated with the means or function. Moreover, the parties agree that this is a means plus function limitation. See Pet. 19–20; Resp. 9. We find “releasing means” is a means plus function limitation and, based on the plain language of the claim, the recited “releasing means” is a part of the also recited “slide hammer assembly,” as the above-quoted claim language defines. Ex. 1001, 13:10–17. Construing a claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) involves two steps: (1) identifying the claimed function; and then (2) determining what structure, if any, disclosed in the Specification corresponds to the claimed function. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351. In conducting this analysis, we may not incorporate structure from the written description beyond that which is necessary to perform the claimed function. See Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,020,129 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,020,129

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.