- PTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00158 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Pham and Wu, and granted joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“4. Conclusion for Claim 1 Having reviewed the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Pham and Wu. E. Conclusion on the Merits of the Petition We have found that the Petition warrants institution based on Petitioner’s showings for claim 1. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments about the other grounds, but they largely rely on the earlier unpersuasive arguments for claim 1. On whole, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the Petition warrants institution.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder with IPR2023- 00703 is granted, and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and Fortinet, Inc. are joined as a party in IPR2023-00703;” slip op. at 27
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“based on the related district court matters identified above. Opp. Mot. Join 4–12. Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3. Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue in the copending district court litigation the specific ground asserted in the petition, or any other ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., grounds that could have been raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patent or printed publications)” (Reply Mot. Join 4–5), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.”) (Director Review). Patent Owner focuses its analysis on factor 5 and proposed factor 8. Id. at 13–15. As to factor 5, which looks for an explanation of the time between petition filing, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently explained the time between Cisco’s petition and its own when it noted that it merely filed its petition and request for joinder when the statute permitted it. Reply Mot. Join 6 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)). In particular, the statute requires the earlier petition to be instituted before joining a party. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (requiring joinder to be to instituted proceedings). Thus, the time elapsed between filings is motivated by the statutory and regulatory procedures. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (requiring the joinder motion to be filed “no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested”). As to proposed factor 8, we agree with Petitioner that the present situation does not apply. Reply Mot. Join. 6–7; see also Shenzhen, IPR2018-00761, Paper 15, 18–19 (Saindon, concurring) (“There are legitimate reasons why a petition may be filed after [a decision on institution)].”). Proposed factor 8 analyzes situations where a second petitioner strategically waits to file its petition to see what happens to an earlier filed petition. Shenzhen, IPR2018-00898, Paper 9 at 7. If both of the petitioners were sued at or around the same time, but one waits until the other goes first, it can lead to an inference that the delay in filing a different petition was to gain an unfair advantage. Id. at 14 (looking with disfavor on a wait-and-see strategy to use the first petition as a “test case”). That is not the case here, where the second petition is a copycat petition. The Petition here cannot be said to have been filed second in order to glean knowledge from the first petition because it is the same petition. Thus, we do not see this Petition as being a strategic attempt to use Cisco’s petition as a “test case,” and do not consider factor 8 to weigh toward denial. Finally, reviewing factor 6, we do not find that granting Petitioner’s motion to join would cause an undue burden on the Board. Petitioner is serving as an “understudy” and thus, from our perspective, Petitioner’s presence does not change the existing Cisco IPR. Patent Owner argues that if Cisco were to settle then Petitioner would continue the proceeding. Opp. Mot. Join. 15. We do not see this as an undue burden in this situation. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder serves to lessen our burden (as well as Patent Owner’s) compared to the scenario of it filing its own unique petition. We do not see the present case as similar to the Apple case, in which a copycat joinder petition was denied. See Apple, IPR2020-00854, Paper 9. That case, in our view, turned on the fact that the petitioner had already filed a petition that was denied on the merits. See id. at 4 (“In effect, it would be as if [the petitioner] had brought the second challenge to the patent in the first instance,” and labeling this a “serial attack.”). The situation here is not analogous to the Apple case because this is Petitioner’s only petition against the ’436 patent. The Petition is not a “serial attack” on the ’436 patent, it is merely Petitioner’s statutorily required vehicle to join as a party to an existing petition. Accordingly, we do not find factor 6 to weigh towards denial. Reviewing the General Plastic factors as a whole, including proposed factor 8, we find no factors to weigh toward denial and decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,566,612 - PTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00099 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds and granted joinder to IPR2023-00673.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter 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.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’436 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“compressed, or use security protocols, then the packets transit the packet engine. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 49, 51, 53). Patent Owner argues that only the SA parameter association task in Pham may be offloaded. Prelim. Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38, 51). Patent Owner’s argument here implies that the filtering function remains at the ingress processor and that some packets will be filtered and never reach the packet engine. See id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 38); Ex. 1004 ¶ 38 (“In the preferred embodiments of the present invention, the ingress processors 30, 34 are tasked with filtering and routing functions . . . .”). The statement Patent Owner relies on is not in the same section as the one Petitioner relies on. In other words, it does not appear on this record that we can limit the disclosure of paragraph 51 based on the statements in paragraph 38. On this record, we are not persuaded that only the SA parameter association task can be offloaded. As Pham notes, tasks can be moved between processors to perform load balancing. Ex. 1004 ¶ 54. We see no disclosure that prevents certain tasks from being load balanced or otherwise tasked to the security processor.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“find them persuasive on this record. Id. at 32–33. At a high level, Patent Owner’s arguments are that Petitioner’s modification to Pham would “increase[] complexity and resources.” Id. at 33. On this record, this argument is unpersuasive because even if the addition of Wu’s intrusion detection system was somehow more complex, the reason to combine it is to gain certain beneficial features. See, e.g., Pet. 30–31. Patent Owner’s arguments do not show that the alleged increase in complexity would somehow dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art from including these beneficial features. See, e.g., Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (alteration in original); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”).” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“based on the related district court matters identified above. Opp. Mot. Join 4–12. Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3. Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue in the copending district court litigation the specific ground asserted in the petition, or any other ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., grounds that could have been raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patent or printed publications)” (Reply Mot. Join 4–5), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,685,436 - Apple Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2022 · IPR2022-00362 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable over Numazaki and Nonaka; claims 4, 11, and 18 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the sensors were fixed relative to each other.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“After institution, LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. filed a petition and a motion for joinder to this proceeding. IPR2022-00092, Papers 1, 3. We granted the motion for joinder, and IPR2022-00092 was joined with this proceeding and dismissed. Paper 12, 11–12. In addition, Google LLC filed a petition and a motion for joinder to this proceeding. IPR2022-00362, Papers 2, 3. We granted the additional motion for joinder, and IPR2022-00362 was joined with this proceeding and dismissed. Paper 16, 5–6. Consequently, Apple Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Google LLC are joined in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction,” and “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for the purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 5. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“C. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, the Board interprets claim language using the district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Although extrinsic evidence, when available, may also be useful when construing claim terms under this standard, extrinsic evidence should be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317–19. capture command causes the digital camera to store an image to memory” in claim 1, “capturing an image to the digital camera in response to . . . the image capture command” in claim 8, and “correlate the gesture detected . . . with an image capture function and subsequently capture an image using the digital camera” in claim 13. Pet. 8. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that these phrases “should be construed broadly enough to encompass capturing/storing video or still images,” and provides reasons supporting its assertion. Id. at 8–10. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions. PO Resp. 5. We agree with Petitioner’s supporting reasoning and accordingly adopt Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner’s Reply argument is not beyond the proper scope of a reply because it directly responds to Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not explain how elements from both the third and fifth embodiments would accessed by the reflected light extraction unit and whether these elements would operate simultaneously or at different times. Moreover, Petitioner’s Reply argument elaborates on the contentions in the Petition that the gesture recognition would be implemented as a means of allowing the user to initiate the fifth videoconferencing functionality. Pet. 31; see Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F. 3d, 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”). Accordingly, we find that the Petition adequately explains how the reflected light extraction unit would be accessed by both the third embodiment’s shape interpretation unit 333 and the fifth embodiment’s extraction unit 353. We particularly credit Dr. Bederson’s uncontroverted testimony that “it would be well within the capabilities of a [person having ordinary skill in the art] to utilize the same output by two separate processing blocks to implement the proposed combination,” and one of ordinary skill in the art “would understand there are no technical barriers to arranging multiple distinct processing units that separately process the same output of a single unit.” See Ex. 1018 ¶ 9.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,878,949 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,878,949 - Apple Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2022 · IPR2021-00921 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Numazaki and Nonaka; claims 4, 11, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner’s Reply argument is not beyond the proper scope of a reply because it directly responds to Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not explain how elements from both the third and fifth embodiments would accessed by the reflected light extraction unit and whether these elements would operate simultaneously or at different times. Moreover, Petitioner’s Reply argument elaborates on the contentions in the Petition that the gesture recognition would be implemented as a means of allowing the user to initiate the fifth videoconferencing functionality. Pet. 31; see Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F. 3d, 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”). Accordingly, we find that the Petition adequately explains how the reflected light extraction unit would be accessed by both the third embodiment’s shape interpretation unit 333 and the fifth embodiment’s extraction unit 353. We particularly credit Dr. Bederson’s uncontroverted testimony that “it would be well within the capabilities of a [person having ordinary skill in the art] to utilize the same output by two separate processing blocks to implement the proposed combination,” and one of ordinary skill in the art “would understand there are no technical barriers to arranging multiple distinct processing units that separately process the same output of a single unit.” See Ex. 1018 ¶ 9.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not establish sufficiently that Numazaki’s unit 102 and camera 351 are fixed relative to one another. Without more, the mere fact that unit 102 and camera 351 are arranged in parallel and have overlapping fields of view does not establish that the structures are fixed. At the oral hearing, counsel for Petitioner indicated that Petitioner’s position was not an inherency argument but relied on Dr. Bederson’s analysis and interpretation of Numazaki’s fifth embodiment. Tr. 17:7–15. The Petition, however, does not reference any such analysis in connection with the subject matter of claims 4, 11, and 18. 27–28 of the Petition, which pertain to limitation 1[(a)]) discuss the overlapping fields of view but not assert that overlapping fields of view require the structures to be fixed with respect to one another. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Numazaki and Nonaka renders obvious claims 4, 11, or 18. 6. Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–17 Petitioner provides reasonable and detailed explanations, supported by the testimony of Dr. Bederson, indicating where in the references the limitations of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–17 are disclosed. Pet. 33– 43, 44, 47, 49. Further, Patent Owner offers no arguments particularly directed to these dependent claims. PO Resp. 22, 25, 28. We have considered the evidence and arguments of record and determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Numazaki and Nonaka renders obvious claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–17 for the reasons discussed in the Petition and as supported by the testimony of Dr. Bederson.” slip op. at 34
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“After institution, LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. filed a petition and a motion for joinder to this proceeding. IPR2022-00092, Papers 1, 3. We granted the motion for joinder, and IPR2022-00092 was joined with this proceeding and dismissed. Paper 12, 11–12. In addition, Google LLC filed a petition and a motion for joinder to this proceeding. IPR2022-00362, Papers 2, 3. We granted the additional motion for joinder, and IPR2022-00362 was joined with this proceeding and dismissed. Paper 16, 5–6. Consequently, Apple Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Google LLC are joined in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction,” and “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for the purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 5. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. slip op. at 8
Patent outcomesUS 8,878,949 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,878,949 - Skechers USA, Inc. v. Adidas AGNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00127 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 were not shown unpatentable under §103 because the proposed prior-art modifications lacked adequate support and rational underpinning.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The basis of disagreement boils down to an evaluation of a skilled artisan’s experience. In that respect, Petitioner urges that the artisan generally has “substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic polymers,” whereas Patent Owner characterizes the experience as directed to “biomechanical systems.” The ’079 patent is clearly directed to matters of shoe construction, and takes note, for instance, of the desirability of “cushioning and biomechanically supporting the foot.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–29. It is also apparent that an overarching focus of the ’079 patent is concern with “balance” and “support” of a “foot against misorientations such as pronation and supination (i.e. a tilting movement of the forefoot part to the medial and the lateral side, respectively).” Id. at 2:34–39. Such concerns, in our view, go beyond general experience in the design of flexible elements and plastic polymers. In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15. We have considered the respective opinions of the parties when it comes to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reaching our decision as to the merits of this proceeding, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence as to the ordinary skill of an artisan.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13).” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We observe that Patent Owner relies on content of the ’079 patent at column 11, lines 31–34 to support the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” that it advances. That portion of the ’079 patent describes embodiments of the invention appearing in Figures 19 to 25. Referencing particular leaf spring elements 22 and 23 of those embodiments, the ’079 patent states that “[t]ypically the restoring force exerts a force that has a component orthogonal to the sole plate (e.g., for cushioning) and a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction (e.g., for acceleration).” Ex. 1001, 11:31–34. While that language mirrors the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” proposed by Patent Owner, we discern that the noted clause also begins with the term “[t]ypically.” That leaf spring elements may “typically” include a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction does not lend itself to the conclusion that a “leaf spring” necessarily includes such a component. Rather, it conveys the opposite. In that respect, the plain understanding of the pertinent content of the ’079 patent is that, while, perhaps, not typical, the ’079 patent contemplates other component arrangements, logically including those in which the parallel component is not in the rearward direction.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that are “integrally joined to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently discloses that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally. Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja also inadequately explain why combination of Luthi ’202’s teachings with those of either Luthi ’800 or Chan would result in the above-noted “central cavity” as a part of the directional element of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. Although Luthi ’800 and Chan may show spaces or cavities in components of their shoes, there appear substantial differences in the designs of those shoes, and in particular the cushioning aspects, as compared with Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. We credit Dr. Hinrichs’s and Dr. Luthi’s testimony that the presence of such a cavity as shown in Luthi ’800 and Chan would prove detrimental to the medial-lateral stability of Luthi ’202’s shoe, and specifically the directional element of such a shoe that is depicted in Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 42; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 11–13. To that end, we also find inadequate Petitioner’s general position that combining the teachings of Luthi ’202, Luthi ’800, and Chan would result simply in a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods that would yield predictable results,” and “well within the knowledge and skill of persons of ordinary skill in the art . . .” Pet. 35. We are not persuaded that any such combination would yield the “predictable results” advanced by Petitioner, or that “well within the knowledge and skill” of an artisan cited by Petitioner constitutes rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (An assertion of unpatentability based on “obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,339,079 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,339,079 - Skechers USA, Inc. v. Adidas AGNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00125 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 20–32 were not shown unpatentable under §103 because the proposed modifications to Luthi ’202 were unsupported and relied on hindsight.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“artisan’s experience. In that respect, Petitioner urges that the artisan generally has “substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic polymers,” whereas Patent Owner characterizes the experience as directed to “biomechanical systems.” The ’285 patent is clearly directed to matters of shoe construction, and takes note, for instance, of the desirability of “cushioning and biomechanically supporting the foot.” Ex. 1001, 1:19–21. It is also apparent that an overarching focus of the ’285 patent is concern with “balance” and “support” of a “foot against misorientations such as pronation and supination (i.e. a tilting movement of the forefoot part to the medial and the lateral side, respectively.” Id. at 2:28– 31. Such concerns, in our view, go beyond general experience in the design of flexible elements and plastic polymers. In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15. In crediting Dr. Hinrichs’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art we observe that, although Petitioner makes reference to the testimony of its declarant Mr. Ganaja (see Pet. 6 (citing 1002 ¶¶ 39–43)), Mr. Ganaja makes no evaluation of his own in that testimony in connection with the level of ordinary skill. We have considered the respective opinions of the parties when it comes to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reaching our decision as to the merits of this proceeding, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence as to the ordinary skill of an artisan.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8 and 11–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that “come together integrally to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently disclosed that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“column 11, lines 23–26 to support the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” that it advances. That portion of the ’285 patent describes embodiments of the invention appearing in Figures 19 to 25. Referencing particular leaf spring elements 22 and 23 of those embodiments, the ’285 patent states that “[t]ypically the restoring force exerts a force that has a component orthogonal to the sole plate (e.g., for cushioning) and a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction (e.g., for acceleration).” Ex. 1001, 11:23–26. While that language mirrors the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” proposed by Patent Owner, we discern that the noted clause also begins with the term “[t]ypically.” That leaf spring elements may “typically” include a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction does not lend itself to the conclusion that a “leaf spring” or “leaf spring element” necessarily includes such a component. Rather, it conveys the opposite. In that respect, the plain understanding of the pertinent content of the ’285 patent is that, while, perhaps, not typical, the ’285 patent contemplates other component arrangements, logically including those in which the parallel component is not in the rearward direction. Indeed, our above-noted understanding is also consistent with other embodiments described in the ’285 patent. For instance, embodiments depicted in Figures 13–16 show elements 23 extending in a forward direction with respect to the sole. The elements 23 of those figures are described as “leaf spring elements.” Id. at 10:15–50. Moreover, the ‘285 patent makes explicit that those leaf spring elements “are either forwardly or rearwardly directed.” Id. at 10:49–50. Patent Owner’s position that the claimed “leaf springs” or “leaf spring elements” require a parallel component extending in the rearward direction is inconsistent with these particular figures and the accompanying description in the ’285 patent. To that end, Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why the meaning of the term “leaf spring” encompasses only a parallel component in the rearward direction, yet the ’285 patent clearly provides that leaf springs may also have components that extend in the forward direction. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we again conclude that “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” mean “a flexible member that deflects and provides a restoring force with an orthogonal and a parallel component in response to a load applied to the sole.” We discern that it is unnecessary to construe expressly any other claim term of the ’285 patent. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8 and 11–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that “come together integrally to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently disclosed that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,345,285 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,345,285 - Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01166 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Takano and Yanai because the proposed combination relied on unsupported assumptions and impermissible hindsight.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“After institution, Snap-On Incorporated (“Snap-On”) filed a Petition and a Motion for Joinder to this proceeding. IPR2016-00345, Papers 2, 3. We granted the Motion for Joinder, and IPR2016-00345 was joined with IPR2015-01166 and terminated. Paper 24, 6. Consequently, Hilti and Snap-On (collectively, “Petitioner”) are joined in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We construed three claim terms in our Decision to Institute: (1) “hand held power tool,” (2) “battery cells being capable of producing an average discharge current greater than or equal to approximately 20 amps,” and (3) “nominal voltage.” Inst. Dec. 6–12. Neither party has indicated that the interpretations for those phrases were improper, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial determinations. Accordingly, the following interpretations are not in dispute and apply to this Decision:” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“select a positive electrode surface area of 540 cm2 for Yanai’s cell 1-4 would be to rely on the disclosure of Adachi; that is, to assert that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Takano and Yanai with the teaching of Adachi. Petitioner, however, has repeatedly argued that this is not what it proposes. Reply 3; Tr. 22:22–23:4. Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not provide an adequate reason to combine Adachi with Takano and Yanai.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner
“Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 7,999,510 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,999,510 - PTAB · Jul 20, 2015 · IPR2015-00517 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because neither petition showed a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 30, 32, 42, or 45 were unpatentable over Kitamura or Mehrotra.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We review the Petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter 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.” Based on our review of the record, we conclude that neither Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in demonstrating that at least one of the challenged claims is not patentable, based on the Petitions filed. See 35 U.S.C. § 314. B.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Kitamura is largely silent as to the specific functioning of the D/A conversion circuit 10. Kitamura discloses that D/A conversion circuit 10 and A/D conversion circuit 13 “preferably share a voltage dividing element and a reference voltage supply (for the purpose of making their characteristics uniform),” and level differences to maximize the operating margin (Ex. 1010 ¶ 11), but does not disclose a “selection” between reference voltages or signals. Although Petitioners emphasize the obviousness of certain elements of the challenged claims (Pet. 25– 26), the obviousness of selecting a reference voltage versus outputting a voltage from a D/A conversion is not discussed. Indeed, Dr. Baker’s discussion is clear (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74–79) as to how the output voltages could be set, but it remains unclear how Kitamura itself suggests the examples proffered. The normal function of a D/A converter is not to select between reference voltages, but to render the digital input into analog form. We are not persuaded that Kitamura teaches or suggests the selection of one of a plurality of reference voltages in accordance with the input information, per the challenged claims. In addition, the Petitions fail to provide any rationale for why Kitamura’s disclosure of D/A conversion renders the selection of a reference voltage or signal obvious. For these reasons, Patent Owner’s contentions that Kitamura does not teach or suggest “reference voltage selecting means,” or equivalent elements, or “reference voltages,” per the challenged claims, are persuasive. C.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner construction§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“Reference Voltage Selection Claim 1 recites “reference voltage selecting means for selecting one of a plurality of reference voltages,” with claims 9, 12, and 30 reciting “selecting device which selects one of a plurality of reference signals,” and claims 42 and 45 reciting “selecting one of a plurality of predetermined reference signals.” Petitioners acknowledge that the means-plus-function element in claim 1 is “governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6,” and that the construction of the claim term in claim 1 “is applicable to claim terms” recited in claims 9, 12, 30, 42, and 45, discussed above. Pet. 5, 8. Petitioners assert that “the verify reference voltage select circuit 222 selects and provides such a reference voltage to the comparator,” and is the corresponding structure described in the specification. Id. at 56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4552). For purposes of this Decision, we construe the referenced claim terms according to that structure and apply the same to the analysis below. B.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Reference Voltages” “Reference Signals” All of the independent claims of the challenged claims recite either “reference signals” or “reference voltages.” Petitioners emphasize that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted these features to be broad enough to include and be met by either a digital reference voltage/ signal or an analog reference voltage/signal.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–58). For purposes of this Decision, we construe the reference voltages and signals terms as being met by either digital or analog reference voltages/signals, and apply that construction to the analysis below. slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,764,571 - Yamaha Corporation Of America v. Black Hills Media, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 18, 2015 · IPR2013-00597 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2, 6, and 10–12 are unpatentable: Bi anticipates claims 2, 6, and 10–12; Gladwin anticipates claims 2, 6, 11, and 12; Berman renders claims 2, 6, 11, and 12 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“[a] playlist is a list of a user’s favorite selections.” Ex. 1001, 1:33–34. Patent Owner quotes from the specification of the ’099 Patent: Playlists also facilitate the playing of a plurality of selections in a particular order. That is, the playlist may be compiled in an order in which the playing of selections therefrom is desired. The selections may then be automatically played sequentially from the playlist. Typically, selections may also be played randomly from a playlist. PO Resp. 10; Ex. 1001, 1:45–52 (emphasis added).2 As noted by Petitioner, this passage reflects that a playlist may have a particular order of selections (see Pet. Reply 6), but also expressly discloses that selections may be played randomly from a playlist. slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“wireless handheld remote control which is associated with and separate from the media player device,” arguing that the term requires “a handheld remote control that can operate as an independent device relative to the media player that it control.” PO Resp. 14–16 (emphasis and grammatical error in original); see also Tr. 70:1–14 (“independent and separate would be synonyms.”). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s proposal is narrow and excludes “a standard remote control for a device,” Pet. Reply 8–9. We agree, as in addition to the Petitioner’s contentions, we note the terms “operate” and “independent” do not appear in the ’099 patent. 9 We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction over the ordinary and customary meaning of the term.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelOther
“year of practical experience with networked multimedia.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 8. Patent Owner’s proposal is similar, requiring “a person with a bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering and one year of practical experience with networked media.” PO Resp. 7. The parties dispute Petitioner’s use of the qualifying phrase “at least” in describing the level of education and work experience. While we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “at least” is “improper because it is open-ended” (PO Resp. 7–8),3 we determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, neither party has provided a sufficient explanation as to how their specific proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill (and in particular the importance of the inclusion or exclusion of “at least”) affects the analysis in this case. Therefore, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“B. Motion to Amend In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner moves to cancel independent claim 1 and dependent claim 9. Paper 25. Petitioner’s Reply does not oppose the motion. Pet. Reply 1. We grant the motion to amend, and proceed to analyze the remaining five claims.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 8,230,099 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,230,099
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.