- Facebook, Inc. v. Palo Alto Research Center LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 2, 2023 · IPR2021-01472 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9–16 are unpatentable under §103 over Heidloff, Riggsby, RFC 5233, Low, and RFC 2369; the alternative ground adding Hazel reaches the same result.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Institution Decision, we accepted Petitioner’s uncontested assessment of the level of ordinary skill, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of education. Inst. Dec. 5. Patent Owner applies this level of skill in its analysis. PO Resp. 13 (citing Inst. Dec. 4–5). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, as qualified in the Institution Decision, is uncontested. We apply this skill level, as the references of record and the ’190 patent support it.” slip op. at 5
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution. A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply and may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness. 37 CFR 42.23(b). Patent Owner’s Response does not use the word “display” at all, let alone address the scope of the “displaying” limitation in claim 9. to the “displaying” limitation. See Pet. Reply. Yet, in its Sur-reply, Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s showing for the “displaying” limitation for the first time. At oral argument, Patent Owner’s counsel stated that its Sur-reply arguments about the “displaying” limitation are not improper because those arguments address certain of Petitioner’s reply arguments, and counsel further stated that Patent Owner’s Response asserted that the alleged incoming message of the prior art “did not include both the tag address and the recipient address.” Tr. 39:11–40:14. The argument in Patent Owner’s Response about the “receiving” step, however, does not justify a new argument about the scope of a different limitation. Petitioner’s contentions for the “displaying” limitation are set forth clearly at pages 45 to 46 of the Petition. Petitioner explains that the incoming message is displayed but makes no mention of displaying the tag address and the recipient address as those addresses are not recited in the “displaying” step. Pet. 45–46. Patent Owner, therefore, was on notice of Petitioner’s contentions for the “displaying” limitation and chose not to dispute them in its Response. Consequently, Patent Owner’s raising this argument for the first time in the Sur-reply is improper under our Rules. Because Patent Owner improperly raised this argument in its Sur-reply, we overrule Patent Owner’s objection at the oral hearing to Petitioner’s argument on this issue. See Tr. 38:13–39:5 (objecting to “the entirety of Facebook’s argument regarding this display claim element”).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As shown above, dependent claims 11, 12, and 14 read on the embodiment of Figure 6 and not on the disclosure of Figure 4. “By definition, an independent claim is broader than a claim that depends from it, so if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well.” Littlefuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 972 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). Thus, because claims dependent on independent claim 9 read on Figure 6, claim 9 must cover the embodiment in Figure 6, even if it covers Figure 4 as well. This conclusion is significant because Figure 6 depicts no addresses. Patent Owner cites the disclosure in column 8, lines 52–55 of the ’190 patent as allegedly disclosing the display of the addresses. Tr. 44:10–17. This passage states the following: “Each email message 94 displayed can include an email header 95 and email content 96. The email header 95 can include a Ex. 1001, 8:52–55. But the sender, attention (recipient), and tag fields in the header 95 of Figure 6 show names and tags, not addresses. Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. Turning back to the claim construction dispute, claim 9 recites “receiving an incoming message with a recipient address and a tag address comprising one or more content tags, each of the content tags associated with one or more users,” and “displaying the incoming message to at least one of the users associated with the at least one content tag.” The issue is whether the claim requires displaying the tag address and the recipient address that are received with the incoming message. Consistent with the disclosure of Figure 6, an embodiment on which claim 9 reads, we conclude that claim 9 does not require displaying the tag address and the recipient address, although claim 9 clearly requires that these addresses be received with the message.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s asserted reasons to combine the teachings of Heidloff, Riggsby, and RFC 5233, summarized above in § II.D.2.b.1, are persuasive. As Petitioner points out, Riggsby discloses features of mail-in databases, and Heidloff discloses an improvement to existing mail-in databases. See Pet. 30–32 & n.7. Heidloff discloses a natural language solution to the problem in existing mail-in databases “that users still often do not know the appropriate email address(es) of the shared source(s).” Ex. 1003, 1:43–53. As noted above, Riggsby discloses mail-in databases, in which documents can be emailed to a database, including discussion databases, and it also discloses category fields for documents in a discussion database. Ex. 1004, that Riggsby’s disclosure of its mail-in database as a “great collaboration tool” having features such as viewing documents by category would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Riggby’s mail-in database teachings with Heidloff’s mail-in database system. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 90–96 (Mr. Schmandt testifying about the beneficial features of Riggsby and the combination with Heidloff). We further find that RFC 5233’s disclosure that subaddressing provides detail that gives “extra meaning” to an email address and facilitates sorting of received email would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine RFC 5233’s subaddressing teachings with the combination of Heidloff and Riggsby. See Ex. 1005, 1 (p. 2) (“Subaddressing is the practice of augmenting the local-part of an [RFC2822] address with some ‘detail’ information in order to give some extra meaning to that address.” (brackets in original)), 1–2 (p.2) (discussing sorting messages and delivering to particular mailboxes for a user based on the subaddress information). Furthermore, Riggsby explains that documents in a mail-in database can be organized by categories (Ex. 1004, 86 (p. 194)), underscoring that the keywords entered by the user in the natural language address of Heidloff, which “represent topics relating to corresponding shared content sources” (Ex. 1003, 3:17–19), are important to convey to the database. As Petitioner correctly points out (Pet. 27), any one keyword in Heidloff may trigger email forwarding under the “logical ‘OR’ approach,” so using the subaddressing to convey the keyword that triggered the match takes advantage of RFC 5233’s teachings to provide useful information to the database. user of new documents that are added to discussion databases in certain categories, would have improved Heidloff’s system. Ex. 1004, 87 (p. 195), Fig. 7.6; see Pet. 35–36 (“Riggsby discloses an additional feature in which a user can ask to be notified in the event new messages are added within a specified ‘category’ of the database . . . .” (citing Ex. 1004, 87 (p. 195), Fig. 7.6)). Riggsby explains that the “newsletter process consists of automatic e-mails sent to notify you that documents of interest were added to the discussion that day” and that it “runs every night.” Ex. 1004, 87 (p. 195). We credit Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that this feature is beneficial because it keeps users apprised of new documents of interest without requiring them to constantly check. Ex. 1002 ¶ 113. The daily frequency would also address Heidloff’s concern of flooding users with emails. Ex. 1003, 1:22–27. Furthermore, we find that Riggsby’s disclosure that a user can specify categories in which the user is interested in updates via the newsletter (Ex. 1004, 87 (p. 195)) teaches content tags (categories) that are associated with one or more users, as recited in claim 9. (3) Determination for “receiving an incoming message” Based on Petitioner’s persuasive argument and evidence, summarized and addressed above, we determine that the step of “receiving an incoming message with a recipient address and a tag address comprising one or more content tags, each of the content tags associated with one or more users” would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the asserted combination of prior art.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 9,137,190 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,137,190 - Facebook, Inc. v. Palo Alto Research Center LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 2, 2023 · IPR2021-01467 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–36 are unpatentable as obvious over the three combinations of prior art set out in the grounds table.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Institution Decision, we accepted Petitioner’s uncontested assessment of the level of ordinary skill, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of education and experience. Inst. Dec. 5. Patent Owner applies this level of skill in its analysis. PO Resp. 7–8 (citing Inst. Dec. 5). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, as qualified in the Institution Decision, is uncontested. We apply this skill level, as the references of record and the ’781 patent support it.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Both parties assert that there are no claim construction issues that need to be addressed to resolve the patentability challenges. Pet. 9; PO Resp. 11. We agree that no claim terms require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Konig does not suggest that additional criteria, such as a link distance limit, would be unsuitable and does not even mention a link distance limit, let alone “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” using one. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, although Konig’s threshold score does limit the documents added to the stack, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to additionally limit the link distance traversed, as taught in Manber. See Pet. 31–33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 147–149). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Fox, testifies that it was well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art that link distance limits must be placed on searches when traversing linked sets of information. Ex. 1002 ¶ 147 (citing Ex. 1004, 15 (p. 203)). We credit this testimony because it is based on Manber’s disclosure of an experiment in which a neighborhood had a link distance of three, which was “too much” because the “neighborhood files became too big and search was not sufficiently restricted; the indexing stage was also too slow as a result.” Ex. 1004, 15 (p. 203). Thus, Manber’s disclosure underscores computational complexities that arise as the universe of searched documents grows. Manber defaults to a link distance of two. Based on this evidence, we agree with Dr. Fox that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “have been motivated to restrict the scope of Konig’s Personal Crawler by a ‘threshold link distance’ in order to improve indexing speeds and limit the size of the stack.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 147.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Konig does not suggest that additional criteria, such as a link distance limit, would be unsuitable and does not even mention a link distance limit, let alone “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” using one. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, although Konig’s threshold score does limit the documents added to the stack, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to additionally limit the link distance traversed, as taught in Manber. See Pet. 31–33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 147–149). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Fox, testifies that it was well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art that link distance limits must be placed on searches when traversing linked sets of information. Ex. 1002 ¶ 147 (citing Ex. 1004, 15 (p. 203)). We credit this testimony because it is based on Manber’s disclosure of an experiment in which a neighborhood had a link distance of three, which was “too much” because the “neighborhood files became too big and search was not sufficiently restricted; the indexing stage was also too slow as a result.” Ex. 1004, 15 (p. 203). Thus, Manber’s disclosure underscores computational complexities that arise as the universe of searched documents grows. Manber defaults to a link distance of two. Based on this evidence, we agree with Dr. Fox that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “have been motivated to restrict the scope of Konig’s Personal Crawler by a ‘threshold link distance’ in order to improve indexing speeds and limit the size of the stack.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 147.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 8,606,781 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,606,781 - PTAB · Jan 31, 2023 · IPR2022-01191 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 under both asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Hafeman 670 and declining discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Our binding guidance states that the Board “will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Memorandum, 7. Petitioner could not make such a stipulation in district court litigation to which it is not a party. Instead, LG, as the defendant in the LG Litigation and a real party in interest in this proceeding, made such a stipulation, and LG’s stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. Indeed, in advocating for discretionary denial in view of the LG Litigation, Patent Owner argues that “for all intents and purposes, Google and Microsoft are ‘the same party’ as LG in the litigation.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Patent Owner, therefore, effectively treats Petitioner and LG as the same entity to argue for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 10
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“In light of the priority dispute with respect to the challenged claims, we determine that two petitions are justified. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide6 (Nov. 2019), 59 (“[T]he Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.”). We also note the that two petitions together present a total of four grounds, and addressing the grounds in the two petitions does not create a substantial burden on the Board or the parties under these circumstances.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“(“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent and at least two years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., electronic communications systems.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–97). Petitioner also contends that “[s]ignificantly more practical experience could also qualify one not having the aforementioned education as a person of ordinary skill in the art while, conversely, a higher level of education could offset a lesser amount of experience.” Id. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner neither addresses Petitioner’s proposed definition nor proposes a different level of skill in the art. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Petitioner presents two issues for claim construction. Pet. 23–27. First, Petitioner argues that certain language in each independent claim should be interpreted to require the automatic display of certain information “during or after every boot-up.” Id. at 23–26. Second, Petitioner argues that the return and recovery information recited in the claims is merely printed matter that is not entitled to patentable weight. Id. at 26–27. Patent Owner “takes no position” on Petitioner’s first claim construction argument, and disputes Petitioner’s second argument. Prelim. Resp. 8–12. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,789,393 - PTAB · Jan 31, 2023 · IPR2022-01190 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–7 based on both asserted obviousness grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Our binding guidance states that the Board “will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Memorandum, 7. Petitioner could not make such a stipulation in a district court litigation to which it is not a party. Instead, LG, as the defendant in the LG Litigation and a real party in interest in this proceeding, made such a stipulation, and LG’s stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. Indeed, in advocating for discretionary denial in view of the LG Litigation, Patent Owner argues that “for all intents and purposes, Google and Microsoft are ‘the same party’ as LG in the litigation.” Prelim. Resp. 23. Patent Owner, therefore, effectively treats Petitioner and LG as the same entity to argue for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 10
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“In light of the priority dispute with respect to the challenged claims, we determine that two petitions are justified. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide7 (Nov. 2019), 59 (“[T]he Board” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“independent claims 1, 4, and 7, and Petitioner’s contentions regarding reasons to combine the teachings of Jenne and Cohen, and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood that they would prevail in showing that claims 1, 4, and 7 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Jenne and Cohen. Pet. 19–41.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Based on the record before us, we disagree. Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have been motivated to display ownership information to the captive audience described in Jenne because displaying this information increases the likelihood that a lost or misplaced computer will be returned to its owner. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 292). And, as Petitioner points out, Cohen expressly teaches that displaying ownership indicia automatically upon boot-up of the device “provides a technique whereby the likelihood owner has been greatly enhanced and whereby ownership of otherwise fungible devices may be easily determined.” Ex. 1006, 5:49–56; Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 292 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:43–58)). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner adequately establishes, for purposes of institution, that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Jenne and Cohen as proposed.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,789,393 - PTAB · Jan 31, 2023 · IPR2022-01189 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Hafeman 670 anticipates the claims because the ’332 application lacked written-description support for remote initiating.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Our binding guidance states that the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Interim Procedure 7. Petitioner could not make such a stipulation in district court litigation to which it is not a party. The defendant in that litigation, LG Electronics Inc., which is a real party in interest in this proceeding (Pet. 81),” slip op. at 6
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“We find that two petitions are justified here due to the priority date issue that this Petition raises. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (“[T]he Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.”).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction We need not expressly construe any terms to determine whether to institute. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,325,122 - PTAB · Jan 31, 2023 · IPR2022-01188 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, finding a reasonable likelihood that Jenne and Cohen or Angelo and Helle render the challenged claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Our binding guidance states that the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Interim Procedure 7. Petitioner could not make such a stipulation in district court litigation to which it is not a party. The defendant in that litigation, LG Electronics Inc., which is a real party in interest in this proceeding (Pet. 78),” slip op. at 6
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“We find that two petitions are justified here due to the priority date issue that Petitioner addresses in IPR2022-01189. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (“[T]he Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.”).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“4. Preliminary Determination for Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above and based on Petitioner’s contentions and evidence, summarized above, we are persuaded, on this record, that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,325,122 - PTAB · Jan 31, 2023 · IPR2022-01192 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–7 on both asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Our binding guidance states that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure 7. Petitioner could not make such a stipulation in district court litigation to which it is not a party. The defendant in that litigation, LG Electronics Inc., which is a real party in interest in this proceeding (Pet. 78), made such a stipulation. Thus, this stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” See Interim Procedure 7. Indeed, in advocating for discretionary denial in view of the district court litigation, Patent Owner argues that “Google and Microsoft are [s]tanding in LG’s [s]hoes.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 23 (asserting that, “for all intents and purposes, Google and Microsoft are ‘the same party’ as LG in the litigation”). Thus, Patent Owner effectively treats Petitioner and LG as the same entity in arguing for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 9
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“We find that two petitions are justified here due to the priority date issue that Petitioner addresses in IPR2022-01193. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (“[T]he Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.”).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’287 patent challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute a trial on all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition. The Board has not made a final determination under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–7 of the ’287 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 39
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. 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). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision, with the exception of the open-ended language “at least.”” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,892,287 - Facebook, Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2022-00570 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable under §103 over Reynolds, Bernardo, Meyer, and Witkowski; the Board also finds it unpatentable over that combination with Coombs.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ assessments are substantially similar. Both call for a technical degree and some practical experience, but both also acknowledge that more experience can offset less formal education. Petitioner’s proposed assessment, however, limits the technical degree to one of four disciplines. We are not persuaded that the educational requirements should be so restrictive, and we favor Patent Owner’s assessment as it acknowledges that a person of ordinary skill in the art may have a degree in a “similar discipline” to computer science, math, or engineering. In addition, Petitioner’s use of the language “at least” expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely without an upper bound. The Institution Decision applied Patent Owner’s proposed construction, and Petitioner did not further address this issue during trial. See Inst. Dec. 10–12. Thus, consistent with the Institution Decision and for the reasons stated above, we apply Patent Owner’s assessment. We also note that we would reach the same determinations on Petitioner’s patentability challenges in §§ II.D–E below if we adopted Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner argues that no express constructions are necessary but provides various constructions or proposed constructions from district court litigations “for purposes of providing complete disclosure.” Pet. 15–18. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Petition and Dr. Madisetti’s opinions violate all constructions” of “substantially contemporaneously,” “run time file,” and “building one or more web pages.” PO Resp. 13–16. These arguments are directed to whether the prior art teaches the subject matter and do not raise any claim construction disputes. We determine that there are no claim construction disputes that require resolution to render a decision on the patentability of claim 1. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that viewable menus “had known benefits and were standard fixtures of graphical user interface (GUI) implementations since at least the early 1980s.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 87). Dr. Madisetti provides credible testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the benefits of viewable menus to select settings, citing a patent issued in 1984 to Apple that outlines some of those benefits long before the filing of the ’397 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–88 (citing Ex. 1009 (U.S. Patent No. 4,464,652 (“Lapson”)), 6:16–54, Figs. 14, 15). Lapson illustrates a “pull down” menu in its Figure 14 and explains that, with such a menu, “it is possible for a user to select and execute a variety of commands without the necessity of inputting characters on a keyboard, as is commonly required in the art.” Ex. 1009, 6:55–58, Fig. 14; see Pet. 46 (discussing this disclosure). Lapson expressly states that such menus are suited for “a word processing system or the like, wherein large blocks of text or other data may be manipulated or operated upon simply by” moving the cursor and pressing a switch.” Ex. 1009, 58–64. Thus, Lapson’s disclosure of the benefits of viewable menus for word processing is further evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use viewable menus in Reynolds’s editing tool, which “supports standard word processing functions.” Ex. 1003, 7:24–28. Dr. Madisetti testifies that “[v]iewable menus provide a clear user experience advantage by allowing a user to make a selection by simply choosing from a menu of displayed options—thus allowing the user to quickly make a selection without having to type or key in the selection (for example using a keyboard).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 87. We credit this testimony because it is consistent with the evidence discussed above, including Lapson. We also agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Bernardo’s viewable menu teachings with Reynolds. See Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89). As Dr. Madisetti credibly testifies, “the user interface techniques described in Bernardo were well-known long before December 1999, and could have been implemented using conventional programming techniques.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 89. This testimony is supported by Lapson’s disclosures of viewable menus in 1984, discussed above. Ex. 1009, 6:16–58, Figs. 14, 15. And as Patent Owner acknowledges and as discussed above, Reynolds discloses viewable menus for another client plug-in, navigation tool 84. See PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:35–38). Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to implement viewable menus in Reynolds’s authoring tools.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s reasoning to combine is persuasive. In particular, Petitioner argues that viewable menus “had known benefits and were standard fixtures of graphical user interface (GUI) implementations since at least the early 1980s.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 87). Dr. Madisetti provides credible testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the benefits of viewable menus to select settings, citing a patent issued in 1984 to Apple that outlines some of those benefits long before the filing of the ’397 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–88 (citing Ex. 1009 (U.S. Patent No. 4,464,652 (“Lapson”)), 6:16–54, Figs. 14, 15). Lapson illustrates a “pull down” menu in its Figure 14 and explains that, with such a menu, “it is possible for a user to select and execute a variety of commands without the necessity of inputting characters on a keyboard, as is commonly required in the art.” Ex. 1009, 6:55–58, Fig. 14; see Pet. 46 (discussing this disclosure). Lapson expressly states that such menus are suited for “a word processing system or the like, wherein large blocks of text or other data may be manipulated or operated upon simply by” moving the cursor and pressing a switch.” Ex. 1009, 58–64. Thus, Lapson’s disclosure of the benefits of viewable menus for word processing is further evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use viewable menus in Reynolds’s editing tool, which “supports standard word processing functions.” Ex. 1003, 7:24–28. Dr. Madisetti testifies that “[v]iewable menus provide a clear user experience advantage by allowing a user to make a selection by simply choosing from a menu of displayed options—thus allowing the user to quickly make a selection without having to type or key in the selection (for example using a keyboard).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 87. We credit this testimony because it is consistent with the evidence discussed above, including Lapson. We also agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Bernardo’s viewable menu teachings with Reynolds. See Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89). As Dr. Madisetti credibly testifies, “the user interface techniques described in Bernardo were well-known long before December 1999, and could have been implemented using conventional programming techniques.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 89. This testimony is supported by Lapson’s disclosures of viewable menus in 1984, discussed above. Ex. 1009, 6:16–58, Figs. 14, 15. And as Patent Owner acknowledges and as discussed above, Reynolds discloses viewable menus for another client plug-in, navigation tool 84. See PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:35–38). Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to implement viewable menus in Reynolds’s authoring tools.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 6,546,397 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,546,397 - Facebook, Inc. / Atlassian Corp. PLC et al. v. Express Mobile, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2022-00598 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103 over Reynolds, Bernardo, Meyer, and Witkowski; the alternative ground adding Coombs also establishes unpatentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ assessments are substantially similar. Both call for a technical degree and some practical experience, but both also acknowledge that more experience can offset less formal education. Petitioner’s proposed assessment, however, limits the technical degree to one of four disciplines. We are not persuaded that the educational requirements should be so restrictive, and we favor Patent Owner’s assessment as it acknowledges that a person of ordinary skill in the art may have a degree in a “similar discipline” to computer science, math, or engineering. In addition, Petitioner’s use of the language “at least” expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely without an upper bound. The Institution Decision applied Patent Owner’s proposed construction, and Petitioner did not further address this issue during trial. See Inst. Dec. 10–12. Thus, consistent with the Institution Decision and for the reasons stated above, we apply Patent Owner’s assessment. We also note that we would reach the same determinations on Petitioner’s patentability challenges in §§ II.D–E below if we adopted Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that no express constructions are necessary but provides various constructions or proposed constructions from district court litigations “for purposes of providing complete disclosure.” Pet. 15–18. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Petition and Dr. Madisetti’s opinions violate all constructions” of “substantially contemporaneously,” “run time file,” and “building one or more web pages.” PO Resp. 13–16. These arguments are directed to whether the prior art teaches the subject matter and do not raise any claim construction disputes. We determine that there are no claim construction disputes that require resolution to render a decision on the patentability of claim 1. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s reasoning to combine is persuasive. In particular, Petitioner argues that viewable menus “had known benefits and were standard fixtures of graphical user interface (GUI) implementations since at least the early 1980s.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 87). Dr. Madisetti provides credible testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the benefits of viewable menus to select settings, citing a patent issued in 1984 to Apple that outlines some of those benefits long before the filing of the ’397 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–88 (citing Ex. 1009 (U.S. Patent No. 4,464,652 (“Lapson”)), 6:16–54, Figs. 14, 15). Lapson illustrates a “pull down” menu in its Figure 14 and explains that, with such a menu, “it is possible for a user to select and execute a variety of commands without the necessity of inputting characters on a keyboard, as is commonly required in the art.” Ex. 1009, 6:55–58, Fig. 14; see Pet. 46 (discussing this disclosure). Lapson expressly states that such menus are suited for “a word processing system or the like, wherein large blocks of text or other data may be manipulated or operated upon simply by” moving the cursor and pressing a switch.” Ex. 1009, 58–64. Thus, Lapson’s disclosure of the benefits of viewable menus for word processing is further evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use viewable menus in Reynolds’s editing tool, which “supports standard word processing functions.” Ex. 1003, 7:24–28. Dr. Madisetti testifies that “[v]iewable menus provide a clear user experience advantage by allowing a user to make a selection by simply choosing from a menu of displayed options—thus allowing the user to quickly make a selection without having to type or key in the selection (for example using a keyboard).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 87. We credit this testimony because it is consistent with the evidence discussed above, including Lapson. We also agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Bernardo’s viewable menu teachings with Reynolds. See Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89). As Dr. Madisetti credibly testifies, “the user interface techniques described in Bernardo were well-known long before December 1999, and could have been implemented using conventional programming techniques.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 89. This testimony is supported by Lapson’s disclosures of viewable menus in 1984, discussed above. Ex. 1009, 6:16–58, Figs. 14, 15. And as Patent Owner acknowledges and as discussed above, Reynolds discloses viewable menus for another client plug-in, navigation tool 84. See PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:35–38). Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to implement viewable menus in Reynolds’s authoring tools.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner’s reasoning to combine is persuasive. In particular, Petitioner argues that viewable menus “had known benefits and were standard fixtures of graphical user interface (GUI) implementations since at least the early 1980s.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 87). Dr. Madisetti provides credible testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the benefits of viewable menus to select settings, citing a patent issued in 1984 to Apple that outlines some of those benefits long before the filing of the ’397 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–88 (citing Ex. 1009 (U.S. Patent No. 4,464,652 (“Lapson”)), 6:16–54, Figs. 14, 15). Lapson illustrates a “pull down” menu in its Figure 14 and explains that, with such a menu, “it is possible for a user to select and execute a variety of commands without the necessity of inputting characters on a keyboard, as is commonly required in the art.” Ex. 1009, 6:55–58, Fig. 14; see Pet. 46 (discussing this disclosure). Lapson expressly states that such menus are suited for “a word processing system or the like, wherein large blocks of text or other data may be manipulated or operated upon simply by” moving the cursor and pressing a switch.” Ex. 1009, 58–64. Thus, Lapson’s disclosure of the benefits of viewable menus for word processing is further evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use viewable menus in Reynolds’s editing tool, which “supports standard word processing functions.” Ex. 1003, 7:24–28. Dr. Madisetti testifies that “[v]iewable menus provide a clear user experience advantage by allowing a user to make a selection by simply choosing from a menu of displayed options—thus allowing the user to quickly make a selection without having to type or key in the selection (for example using a keyboard).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 87. We credit this testimony because it is consistent with the evidence discussed above, including Lapson. We also agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Bernardo’s viewable menu teachings with Reynolds. See Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89). As Dr. Madisetti credibly testifies, “the user interface techniques described in Bernardo were well-known long before December 1999, and could have been implemented using conventional programming techniques.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 89. This testimony is supported by Lapson’s disclosures of viewable menus in 1984, discussed above. Ex. 1009, 6:16–58, Figs. 14, 15. And as Patent Owner acknowledges and as discussed above, Reynolds discloses viewable menus for another client plug-in, navigation tool 84. See PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:35–38). Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to implement viewable menus in Reynolds’s authoring tools.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 6,546,397 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,546,397 - Facebook, Inc. / Atlassian Corp. PLC et al. v. Express Mobile, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2021-01224 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Reynolds, Bernardo, Meyer, and Witkowski, and separately over those references with Coombs.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ assessments are substantially similar. Both call for a technical degree and some practical experience, but both also acknowledge that more experience can offset less formal education. Petitioner’s proposed assessment, however, limits the technical degree to one of four disciplines. We are not persuaded that the educational requirements should be so restrictive, and we favor Patent Owner’s assessment as it acknowledges that a person of ordinary skill in the art may have a degree in a “similar discipline” to computer science, math, or engineering. In addition, Petitioner’s use of the language “at least” expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely without an upper bound. The Institution Decision applied Patent Owner’s proposed construction, and Petitioner did not further address this issue during trial. See Inst. Dec. 10–12. Thus, consistent with the Institution Decision and for the reasons stated above, we apply Patent Owner’s assessment. We also note that we would reach the same determinations on Petitioner’s patentability challenges in §§ II.D–E below if we adopted Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that no express constructions are necessary but provides various constructions or proposed constructions from district court litigations “for purposes of providing complete disclosure.” Pet. 15–18. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Petition and Dr. Madisetti’s opinions violate all constructions” of “substantially contemporaneously,” “run time file,” and “building one or more web pages.” PO Resp. 13–16. These arguments are directed to whether the prior art teaches the subject matter and do not raise any claim construction disputes. We determine that there are no claim construction disputes that require resolution to render a decision on the patentability of claim 1. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- BurdenUnpatentable
“II. ANALYSIS A. Principles of Law A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any secondary considerations, if in evidence.7 Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner’s reasoning to combine is persuasive. In particular, Petitioner argues that viewable menus “had known benefits and were standard fixtures of graphical user interface (GUI) implementations since at least the early 1980s.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 87). Dr. Madisetti provides credible testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the benefits of viewable menus to select settings, citing a patent issued in 1984 to Apple that outlines some of those benefits long before the filing of the ’397 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–88 (citing Ex. 1009 (U.S. Patent No. 4,464,652 (“Lapson”)), 6:16–54, Figs. 14, 15). Lapson illustrates a “pull down” menu in its Figure 14 and explains that, with such a menu, “it is possible for a user to select and execute a variety of commands without the necessity of inputting characters on a keyboard, as is commonly required in the art.” Ex. 1009, 6:55–58, Fig. 14; see Pet. 46 (discussing this disclosure). Lapson expressly states that such menus are suited for “a word processing system or the like, wherein large blocks of text or other data may be manipulated or operated upon simply by” moving the cursor and pressing a switch.” Ex. 1009, 58–64. Thus, Lapson’s disclosure of the benefits of viewable menus for word processing is further evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use viewable menus in Reynolds’s editing tool, which “supports standard word processing functions.” Ex. 1003, 7:24–28. Dr. Madisetti testifies that “[v]iewable menus provide a clear user experience advantage by allowing a user to make a selection by simply choosing from a menu of displayed options—thus allowing the user to quickly make a selection without having to type or key in the selection (for example using a keyboard).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 87. We credit this testimony because it is consistent with the evidence discussed above, including Lapson. We also agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Bernardo’s viewable menu teachings with Reynolds. See Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89). As Dr. Madisetti credibly testifies, “the user interface techniques described in Bernardo were well-known long before December 1999, and could have been implemented using conventional programming techniques.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 89. This testimony is supported by Lapson’s disclosures of viewable menus in 1984, discussed above. Ex. 1009, 6:16–58, Figs. 14, 15. And as Patent Owner acknowledges and as discussed above, Reynolds discloses viewable menus for another client plug-in, navigation tool 84. See PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:35–38). Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to implement viewable menus in Reynolds’s authoring tools.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 6,546,397 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,546,397
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.