- Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 17, 2024 · IPR2023-00876 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are unpatentable: claims 1–4 and 6 as obvious over Linnarsson and McCloskey, and claim 5 as obvious over those references and ordinary skill.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1065 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s October, 27, 2023, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). Because it was not filed until March 29, 2024, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration. In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 1–2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s October 27, 2023, objection to McCloskey. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1065).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We find that both references are analogous art to the ’981 patent, as there is ample supporting evidence in the record, including that to which the Reply cites (citations identified in the immediately preceding paragraph). Indeed, Patent Owner does not dispute the merits of either argument. PO Sur-Reply 27–28. Rather, Patent Owner, argues that we “should not now permit Petitioner to rewrite its clearly-deficient Petition.” Id. at 28. Petitioner’s Reply does not re-write its Petition. What Petitioner’s Reply does, in response to Patent Owner’s arguments, is precisely what Sanofi-Aventis contemplates as being proper in a reply brief. Indeed, in ruling against the petitioner in Sanofi-Aventis, the Federal Circuit specifically noted that the petitioner could have used its reply brief “to explain how [the prior art reference] is analogous to the [challenged] patent” but did not do so. 66 F.4th at 1379–1380. Here, in contrast, Petitioner used its Reply brief to explain how Linnarsson and McCloskey are analogous to the ’981 patent. Petitioner’s explanation in its Reply brief was both proper and persuasive.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“That McCloskey is what it purports to be (a journal article) and that it was published in 2007 are corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence. McCloskey names four authors, all four of whom are named inventors of US 2007/0020640 A1, published Jan. 25, 2007 (“McCloskey ’640”). Ex. 1004, 1, Ex. 2001, code (76). Patent Owner concedes that McCloskey and McCloskey ’640 involve the same subject matter, having argued that the consideration of McCloskey ’640 supported discretionary denial of the Petition based on McCloskey. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 22 (“Petitioner’s secondary reference, an article by McCloskey, is at best cumulative of the far more detailed McCloskey ’640, which was raised by the Office and substantively discussed as the basis for a potential rejection using its asserted disclosure of a polynucleotide-specific tag—the same purported teaching for which Petitioner relies on McCloskey here.”). Notably, McCloskey ’640 was published on January 25, 2007. Ex. 2001, code (43). That is just days before McCloskey was received by BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS on January 31, 2007. See EX. 1004, 1 (“Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007”). In other words, it appears that the authors sought to have their research published in a scientific journal promptly after the subject matter of their research had been published by the Office. Further, the existence of McCloskey and its publication year of 2007 is confirmed by other sources in the record. See Ex. 1029, code (56) (United States Patent identifying as a cited reference: “McCloskey, et al. Encoding Pcr products with batch-stamps and barcodes. Biochem Genet. Dec. 2007;45(11-12):761-7. Epub Oct. 23, 2007.”); Ex. 1053, code (56) (same); Ex. 1060 (article’s bibliography citing “McCloskey ML, Stöger R, Hansen RS, Laird CD. Encoding PCR products with batch-stamps and barcodes. Biochem. Genet 2007;45:761–767. [PubMed: 17955361]”). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied with respect to” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The Petition states that “Petitioner does not believe that any terms require explicit construction in view of the prior art being presented.” Pet. 36. Despite this stated position, Petitioner proposed constructions for “multiplex-identifier (MID)” and “providing a sample.” Id. Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, stated that it “agrees that at this time, solely for purposes of an institution decision on the Petition, no terms require explicit construction.” Prelim. Resp. 45. In instituting the IPR, we found no need to provide an express construction of any claim term. Inst. Dec. 6. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner repeats that it “does not believe any term needs construction,” but nonetheless “applies the Petition’s definitions for ‘MID’ and ‘sample.’” PO Resp. 19. The Petition defines MID as “‘a tag or combination of tags associated with a polynucleotide whose identity (e.g., the tag DNA sequence) can be used to differentiate polynucleotides in a sample.’” Pet. 36 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:33–38). The Petition defines sample as “‘a quantity of material from a biological, environmental medical, or patient source in which detection, measurement, or labeling of target nucleic acids is sought.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:7– 10). We apply these same definitions in our analysis.” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 10,155,981 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,155,981 - PTAB · Sep 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00101 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petition challenges because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“On August 20, 2024, the Director granted Petitioner’s request and vacated the panel’s decision denying institution. Paper 12, 6. In doing so, the Director determined that Menard is not a real party in interest or a privy of Petitioner under § 315(b) and that § 315(b) does not bar institution. Id. at 5. The Director also determined that § 315(a) “does not apply to the ‘cross-claims’ asserted by Petitioner” and that § 315(a) does not bar institution. Id. Additionally, the Director declined to exercise discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in view of the Wisconsin case because Petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation. Id.; see Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022)1 at 3, 7–8 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Further, the Director remanded the case to the panel and instructed the panel “to determine whether the Petition presents a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and to determine whether to institute inter partes review accordingly.” Paper 12, 5–6. As noted above and explained in the patentability analysis below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. See supra § I; infra §§ III.E–III.H.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“On August 20, 2024, the Director granted Petitioner’s request and vacated the panel’s decision denying institution. Paper 12, 6. In doing so, the Director determined that Menard is not a real party in interest or a privy of Petitioner under § 315(b) and that § 315(b) does not bar institution. Id. at 5. The Director also determined that § 315(a) “does not apply to the ‘cross-claims’ asserted by Petitioner” and that § 315(a) does not bar institution. Id. Additionally, the Director declined to exercise discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in view of the Wisconsin case because Petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation. Id.; see Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022)1 at 3, 7–8 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)).” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“On August 20, 2024, the Director granted Petitioner’s request and vacated the panel’s decision denying institution. Paper 12, 6. In doing so, the Director determined that Menard is not a real party in interest or a privy of Petitioner under § 315(b) and that § 315(b) does not bar institution. Id. at 5. The Director also determined that § 315(a) “does not apply to the ‘cross-claims’ asserted by Petitioner” and that § 315(a) does not bar” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied discretionary otherDecided for petitioner
“On August 20, 2024, the Director granted Petitioner’s request and vacated the panel’s decision denying institution. Paper 12, 6. In doing so, the Director determined that Menard is not a real party in interest or a privy of Petitioner under § 315(b) and that § 315(b) does not bar institution. Id. at 5. The Director also determined that § 315(a) “does not apply to the ‘cross-claims’ asserted by Petitioner” and that § 315(a) does not bar institution. Id. Additionally, the Director declined to exercise discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in view of the Wisconsin case because Petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation. Id.; see Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022)1 at 3, 7–8 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)).” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,299,336 - PTAB · Sep 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01300 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). The Board determines whether to institute a trial on behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). A decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition.” PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have possessed a strong understanding in the use and development of genetics and genomics approaches for detecting or monitoring human diseases, such as spatial detection of a target analyte (e.g., mRNA or DNA) in a tissue, and would typically have a Ph.D. in a relevant field (e.g., molecular biology, genetics, and bioinformatics) with two years of experience. Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 24–36). For the purposes of its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not provide its own proposed level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s unchallenged definition as it is consistent with the cited prior art and disclosure of the ’142 patent.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Thus, according to claim 1, to synthesize a first/second plurality of DNA products by performing a synthesis reaction, the “DNA products” must 1) use the oligonucleotides collected in steps (a) and (b) as templates from which the DNA is synthesized, and 2) incorporate a source location-identifying nucleic acid sequence.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“(2) Analysis Neither party has offered a construction for “collecting oligonucleotides under conditions that release them” in claim 1. We note that, in the related litigation, the district court determined that “under conditions that release” should have its plain and ordinary meaning. Ex. 1052, 38. For purposes of institution, we also apply the plain and ordinary meaning of this claim phrase and do not need to expressly construe the claim phrase for purposes of institution. On this record, for the reasons explained by Petitioner and as supported by its declarant testimony, we conclude Petitioner has sufficiently shown that So-456 discloses the “collecting oligonucleotides under conditions that release them” limitation recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 42
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,473,142 - PTAB · Aug 30, 2024 · IPR2022-01531 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–17, 20–21, 24–26, and 29–34 on all grounds stated in the Petition.
RulingsRemand decision- Director reviewOther
“Petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and did not institute inter partes review. Paper 17 (“Inst. Dec.”). Petitioner requested Director review of our decision denying institution (Paper 18 (“Request”)). The Director delegated review of the decision to a Delegated Rehearing Panel. Paper 19. Patent Owner was granted the option to file a response to Petitioner’s Request (Paper 22 (“Request Resp.”)). The Director Review Panel (“DRP”) vacated our decision and remanded the case to this panel with a revised construction for claim 1. Paper 23 (“DRP Dec.”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect (2018). Upon reconsideration of the briefing and the evidence of record in light of the DRP’s claim construction, we conclude that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we grant institution of inter partes review of claims 1–17, 20–21, 24–26, and 29–34 of the ’682 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We find that Petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in the prior consideration of Morales-Sanfrutos, Straus, Singh, and Lees. For instance, under the second prong of Advanced Bionics, we consider “(c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during “(e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art.” Becton, Dickinson, 17–18. We agree with Petitioner that the Office overlooked Morales- Sanfrutos’ and Singh’s teachings during examination and reexamination. Pet. 79. Although Morales-Sanfrutos, Straus, and Singh were listed on an IDS, they were not the subject of a rejection during examination or reexamination. Moreover, for the reasons discussed below at this stage with regard to Petitioner’s grounds over Morales-Sanfrutos, as evidenced by Straus, and over Singh, Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates that the Office materially erred in overlooking Morales-Sanfrutos’s and Singh’s teachings regarding their linker structures. Id. Further, to the extent the Lees’ teachings were considered during examination and reexamination, Lees’ disclosure of a homobifunctional sulfone linker was overlooked. Lees’ homobifunctional linker, which Patent Owner argues is substantially similar to Harris’ homobifunctional linker, which Petitioner chiefly relies upon in Grounds 2–5, was not the subject of a rejection during examination. Pet. Resp. Brief 1; Prelim. Resp. 25–26. We agree with Petitioner that only Lees’ heterobifunctional linker was applied in a rejection during examination. Pet. Resp. Brief 1; Ex. 1018, 42–43, 62. 4. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we apply Petitioner’s unopposed definition for purposes of determining whether to institute review because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,131,682 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01353 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, supported by Dr. Staniford’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and four years of industry experience,” and “would have had a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23, 25). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“We largely agree with Patent Owner that there is no explicit claim- construction dispute. We address Patent Owner’s issues of what ordinarily skilled artisans would have considered in creating and implementing packetfiltering rules in the discussion below. The preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption is one aspect that those with a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks would have considered. Nonetheless, overall, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “configured to prevent an exfiltration operation,” does not require preventing all exfiltrations from occurring, nor allowing all non-exfiltration traffic, and that we need not consider the preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption in the context of that claim construction. We determine that no claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00446 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“how and why persons of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the existing rules to prevent exfiltrations. PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions to make them “drop” rules, per Sourcefire, relies on what an administrator could have done, not what they would have been motivated to do. Id. at 4–5 (citing Pet. 57–58). We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art, combining Sourcefire and Emerging Threats, would have understood that downloaded rules should be reviewed, and it would have been obvious to enable rules that such persons deemed appropriate. We find Dr. Staniford’s testimony to be persuasive on this point. See Ex. 2011, 67:10–68:24, 69:8–72; Ex. 1020, 109. We acknowledge that downloading all of a particualr ruleset from Emerging Threats and enabling all the rules, might have resulted in a drop in performance of the network appliance, but, at the same time, we are significant drop in performance, especially if a potential threat might be sufficient to warrant a minor performance hit. Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged at oral hearing that instituting all rules of a set in “alert” mode would not result in a decrease in performance, even though some computational outlay must be engaged to engage those alert rules. See Hr’g Tr. 24:24–25:4. We are persuaded that judiciously implementing certain rules would not necessary result in a network device that is unusable. Additionally, there is testimony from Dr. Staniford that “you start out with your rules in alert because there might be false positives. I mean, for the best rule in the world, Snort wasn’t known for false positives in the rules, when you apply them to a large network.” Ex. 2011, 68:2–7. As such, we continue to determine that it would have been obvious, in combining Sourcefire with Emerging Threats, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have downloaded rules and implemented specific rules.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner
“Reviewing all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the Petition’s obviousness rationale based on Sourcefire and Emerging Threats is not guided by impermissible hindsight bias. We find persuasive Dr. Staniford’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “this rule [SID:2003021] was not directed to looking for instances of exploits or attacks (which would be invisible within the encryption) but rather was looking for exfiltration of some kind of encrypted data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. As discussed by Petitioner, such recognition was also made by Mr. Marinho and Dr. Goodrich, such that the rule would have been understood to possibly prevent exfiltrations. We continue to be persuaded that Petitioner provides that a correspondence exists between the REQUIRE-TLS-1.1-1.2 operator in the ’343 Patent and SID:2003021 in Emerging Threats, in that both detect an SSL/TLS version in application packet header field values to detect exfiltration attempts using out-of-date encryption protocols. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 229–230). We are ’343 Patent discloses the interruption of a similar type of exfiltration, without resorting to impermissible hindsight bias, that Patent Owner asserts. Patent Owner has provided no evidence that Petitioner used the specification of the ’343 Patent to find an applicable rule in Emerging Threats, as opposed to the testified-version provided by Dr. Staniford that he recalls “working on a similar feature where we looked for large encrypted transmissions outbound from the network on non-HTTP ports as a possible symptom of exfiltration of large amounts of data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Aug 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00330 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–19 on all four asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Analysis The Director of the USPTO has proscribed an interim procedure for discretionary denials in AIA post-grant proceedings with parallel district court litigation. See Ex. 1025, Memorandum to Members of the PTAB from Director Vidal, dated June 21, 2022 (“Memorandum”). In the Memorandum, the Director states that “[w]hen a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition, it mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between district court and the PTAB.” Id. at 7. Further, when such a stipulation is provided, “the grounds the PTAB resolves will differ from those present in the parallel district court litigation” and “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR.” Id. In this case, Petitioner provides a stipulation that falls within the contours of the Memorandum. Ex. 1048, 1. Petitioner’s stipulation meets the requirements of a stipulation pursuant to Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A), and, therefore, the Director’s Memorandum governs our determination here. For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with the Director’s Memorandum, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) due to the parallel district court litigation.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, and the Preliminary Sur-reply as well as all supporting evidence, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge of at least one claim of the ’656 patent as unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’656 patent on all grounds stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“In Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential), the Board accorded “little weight” to declaration testimony that contains a verbatim restatement of a petition’s arguments without additional supporting evidence or reasoning. In Xerox, the Board held that the critical inquiry is whether a declaration is conclusory and unsupported and whether it discloses underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based. Xerox, Paper 9 at 15 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”)); see also RightQuestion, LLC, Paper 17 at 23 (“Petitioner’s declarant makes these same statements verbatim, without more, and with no additional citations to evidence.”). Patent Owner ignores Dr. Jones’s testimony summarizing the relevant disclosures from Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese on which he relies to form his opinions. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–46. Patent Owner also ignores Dr. Jones’s testimony of the specific basis for his opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–68. This testimony contains specific detailed citations to the references in support of Dr. Jones’s opinions. We, thus, find that Dr. Jones’s testimony in support of the Petition, taken as a whole, is supported sufficiently with evidence and technical reasoning at this stage of the proceeding. Consequently, we do not give his testimony little to no weight because portions of it are repeated in the Petition. ii.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Although Stone does not explicitly mention the word “fraud,” it discloses that user device 408 may include user identifiers 418 that “may include attributes related to the user such as . . . a user name, password, photograph image, biometric id.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 45. Dr. Jones testifies that “Stone’s biometric information/‘biometric id’ is typically received and stored on user device 404 during an enrollment/registration process” and “is used for subsequent comparison with the later captured data to provide an authentication decision for a transaction request.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 92 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 9; Ex. 1021, Abst.; Ex. 1023, 8:3–9:39). Patent Owner’s attorney argument that Stone does not mention fraud or biometric authentication ignores the cited disclosure in Stone and Dr. Jones’s testimony which is sufficiently supported by the references he cites. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that Stone does not discuss techniques for preventing fraud is undercut by its acknowledgement that Stone discloses “authentication of the user[] by the payment server where the user’s account information is stored.” Prelim. Resp. 44 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 46). Patent Owner’s argument that Hoyos is not concerned with improving an electronic display or a user’s experience (Prelim. Resp. 36) is unavailing because it fails to address Petitioner’s proposed combination. Petitioner does not rely on Hoyos to improve an electronic display or the user experience but proposes modifying Stone by “implement[ing] Hoyos’ spoofing resistant biometric authentication for fraud detection” with the resulting benefit of “improved deterrent against attempted fraudulent transactions and decreased rejection of valid customers.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). With respect to adding Varghese to the combination of Stone and Hoyos, Patent Owner’s argument is that Petitioner “fails to explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have combined location authentication mentioned in Varghese with Hoyos’s biometric authentication techniques.” Prelim. Resp. 37. Patent Owner, however, does not address Petitioner’s assertions that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented Varghese’s multifactor real-time authentication including location authentication “for improved security” and the other alleged benefits for doing so stated in the Petition. Pet. 22.” slip op. at 43
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,713,656 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01329 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Law; the Board did not reach the additional grounds based on Wood or Jungck.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, supported by Dr. Jacobson’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, four years of professional experience, and a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attack.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner cites to the ’1154 decision, and that panel’s assertion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it is the level that it adopts. PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 25–30). Reviewing both statements, we determine no substantive differences between the two, and continue to adopt the level adopted in the Decision to Institute. See Dec. to Inst. 12–13.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 should be found to be limiting because those preambles provide antecedent basis for multiple limitations recited later in the claims, and because the limitations in the preambles “give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims. PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 38–39; Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Per the Institution Decision, we continue to find the preambles of the independent claims to be limiting. See Dec. to Inst. 14.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. A review of the ’266 Patent does not show the disclosure of “initial dynamic security policy,” or equivalent, and the cited sections (Ex. 1001, 14:13–31) also do not discuss such extra limitations. The ’266 Patent provides: Security policy management server 120 may be configured to communicate one or more dynamic security policies to one or more packet security gateways within network environment 100. … For example, security policy management server 120 may be configured to communicate one or more dynamic security policies to one or more of packet security gateways 112, 114, 116, and 118 on a periodic basis, under specified network conditions, whenever security policy management server 120 receives a new dynamic security policy, whenever a dynamic security policy stored on security policy management server 120 is changed or altered, or in response to a request from one or more of packet security gateways 112, 114, 116, and 118. Ex. 1001, 13:35–50 (emphasis added). Per this disclosure, the PSGs may receive multiple DSPs from the SPMS, with different PSGs receiving different DSPs. This disclosure undercuts the argument that the first set of packet filtering rules needs to be an initial set. We also disagree that this would require the PSGs to produce DSPs; rather, the SPMS would still create and update the DSPs, on an on-going basis, such that a second set can be updated by third set, with that second set being an initial set with respect to the third set, etc. Additionally, the structure of independent claim 1, for example, is directed to a method of filtering packets, such that the claim may read upon a network environment where the plurality of PSGs already contain a DSP, application of another DSP with a first set of packet rules, that are subsequently updated. As such, we are unpersuaded that the implicit claim construction determined in the Institution Decision was incorrect and not in keeping with the language of the claim and the scope of the disclosure of the ’266 Patent.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner also cites claim constructions that have been adopted in previous IPR proceedings (PO Resp. 12–13), but asserts that “these proceedings do not turn on these constructions, and thus these constructions are not necessary. Id. (citing See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with Patent Owner with respect to the additional listed claim limitations and determine that no other claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 10,785,266 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,785,266 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00445 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Law; the Board did not reach the additional grounds based on Wood or Jungck.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, supported by Dr. Jacobson’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, four years of professional experience, and a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attack.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner cites to the ’1154 decision, and that panel’s assertion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it is the level that it adopts. PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 25–30). Reviewing both statements, we determine no substantive differences between the two, and continue to adopt the level adopted in the Decision to Institute. See Dec. to Inst. 12–13.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 should be found to be limiting because those preambles provide antecedent basis for multiple limitations recited later in the claims, and because the limitations in the preambles “give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims. PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 38–39; Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Per the Institution Decision, we continue to find the preambles of the independent claims to be limiting. See Dec. to Inst. 14.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. A review of the ’266 Patent does not show the disclosure of “initial dynamic security policy,” or equivalent, and the cited sections (Ex. 1001, 14:13–31) also do not discuss such extra limitations. The ’266 Patent provides: Security policy management server 120 may be configured to communicate one or more dynamic security policies to one or more packet security gateways within network environment 100. … For example, security policy management server 120 may be configured to communicate one or more dynamic security policies to one or more of packet security gateways 112, 114, 116, and 118 on a periodic basis, under specified network conditions, whenever security policy management server 120 receives a new dynamic security policy, whenever a dynamic security policy stored on security policy management server 120 is changed or altered, or in response to a request from one or more of packet security gateways 112, 114, 116, and 118. Ex. 1001, 13:35–50 (emphasis added). Per this disclosure, the PSGs may receive multiple DSPs from the SPMS, with different PSGs receiving different DSPs. This disclosure undercuts the argument that the first set of packet filtering rules needs to be an initial set. We also disagree that this would require the PSGs to produce DSPs; rather, the SPMS would still create and update the DSPs, on an on-going basis, such that a second set can be updated by third set, with that second set being an initial set with respect to the third set, etc. Additionally, the structure of independent claim 1, for example, is directed to a method of filtering packets, such that the claim may read upon a network environment where the plurality of PSGs already contain a DSP, application of another DSP with a first set of packet rules, that are subsequently updated. As such, we are unpersuaded that the implicit claim construction determined in the Institution Decision was incorrect and not in keeping with the language of the claim and the scope of the disclosure of the ’266 Patent.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner also cites claim constructions that have been adopted in previous IPR proceedings (PO Resp. 12–13), but asserts that “these proceedings do not turn on these constructions, and thus these constructions are not necessary. Id. (citing See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with Patent Owner with respect to the additional listed claim limitations and determine that no other claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 10,785,266 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,785,266 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00334 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 10–15, 17, 19, and 22–25 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness challenges.
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). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence before us, we conclude Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’138 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’138 patent on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are misplaced. It is an oversimplification to say that if the expert testimony is the same as statements in the Petition, then the testimony should be accorded no weight. The issue is not whether the two are the same or nearly identical. Rather, the issue is whether the testimony refers to supporting evidence or contains technical reasoning. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (according “little weight” to declaration testimony that contains a verbatim restatement of a petition’s conclusory assertions without additional supporting evidence or reasoning). This is consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), which states: “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” We do not accord expert testimony little or no weight simply because it is verbatim to what Petitioner states in the Petition. Patent Owner has not even attempted to show that Dr. McDaniel’s testimony is without citation to underlying evidence and lacks technical reasoning. Further, Dr. McDaniel’s testimony regarding motivation to combine the teachings of Kesanupalli and Brown includes numerous other paragraphs, e.g., paragraphs 75–79, and Dr. McDaniel also has testified to the technical content of Kesanupalli, e.g., paragraphs 65–70. All of that testimony should be read together in determining whether Dr. McDaniel’s testimony regarding combining the teachings of Kesanupalli and Brown is wholly conclusory, i.e., without any evidentiary support or technical reasoning. Patent Owner has not shown that it is. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. McDaniel’s testimony should be accorded no weight as to the reasonable expectation of success analysis lacks merit. We decline to accord Dr. McDaniel’s testimony no weight. E.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in [] electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of authentication techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–21). At this preliminary stage and on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except for the qualifier “at least” which would make the stated scope without an upper bound and thus potentially cover the level of skill of an expert. It is supported by the testimony of Dr. McDaniel (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–21) and not disputed by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 10–11). Further, it appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). C.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“Each independent claim recites generally “a processor;” and the ’138 patent states “[a]s used herein, the term ‘processor’ refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores configured to process data, such as computer program instructions.” APPL-1001, 2:21–23. POSITA would understand that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “processor” may include “one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores,” which includes a plurality of separate devices, circuits, and/or processing cores functioning together to provide a processor. APPL-1003, ¶56. Pet. 7. Patent Owner has not proposed a construction for “processor” and states that “it does not address these positions [of Petitioner]” because its Response “does not depend on these definitions.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Based on the description in the specification of the ’138 patent, as cited by Petitioner, we determine, preliminarily, that a “processor,” in the context of the ’138 patent, may include a plurality of separate devices, circuits, and/or processing cores functioning together to provide a processor.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,514,138
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.