• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00505 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16–19, 21, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Gai under theory 1B; claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “patent, we look to “1) the types of problems encountered in the art; 2) the prior art solutions to those problems; 3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; 4) the sophistication of the technology; and 5) the educational level of active workers in the field.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 666–67 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate.” Id. at 667.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther

    “The most common type of MAC bridge is a switch, which has multiple ports connecting it to LANs, other switches, host computing systems, or other network elements. Switches can be roughly classified as access switches or core switches. An access switch has ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems. Core switches interconnect the access switches into a Wide Area Network (WAN), by direct connection between the core switch and access switches and/or by connection to other core switches. Core switches that are directly connected to access switches are referred to herein as edge switches. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27–38. Both parties refer to this disclosure when arguing whether particular switches in the asserted prior art (Gai) qualify as an “access switch” or “edge switch.” See Pet. 5, 22, 27–28 (“edge switches are ‘[c]ore switches that are directly connected to access switches’”), 71; PO Resp. 31–32 (“The ’986 patent discloses that ‘[a]n access switch has ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints.’ . . . The ’986 patent also discloses that edge switches are ‘[c]ore switches that are directly connected to access switches.’”); Reply 20, 22. Dr. Houh and Dr. Olivier do so as well. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39, 66–67, 82–83, 166, 171, 193; Ex. 2001 ¶ 80. Based on the full trial record, we agree and conclude that the descriptions of “access switch” and “edge switch” in the ’986 patent reflect what was understood to be the plain and ordinary meanings of these terms at the time of the invention. Accordingly, we interpret “access switch” to mean a switch with ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems, and interpret “edge switch” to mean a core switch that is directly connected to an access switch.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “and conclude that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to designate switch 117 as the root switch when implementing the network reconfiguration method of Gai. The only mention of an access switch connected to port 7 of switch 114 is at column 13, lines 59–63 of Gai. While that sentence establishes that such an access switch may exist in the network, it does not state or imply that it would be the root switch. Instead, when discussing the operation of the Figure 1 network, Gai only identifies switches 120 and 121 as the root switch. See Ex. 1005, col. 10, ll. 37–41, col. 11, ll. 60–64, col. 14, ll. 16–20, col. 15, ll. 27–29, 38–51, col. 16, ll. 42–45. To be sure, Gai does disclose that “execution of the spanning tree algorithm causes the switches to elect a single switch, among all the switches within each network, to be the ‘root’ switch,” where “[e]ach switch has a unique numerical identifier (switch ID) and the root is the switch having the lowest switch ID numeric value,” such that an access switch can be the root switch if it has the lowest switch ID. See Ex. 1005, col. 2, ll. 42–47, col. 10, ll. 29–36. As Patent Owner and Dr. Olivier explain in detail, though, Gai expressly cautions against doing so. Gai discloses that [d]epending on the configuration of a given network, the location of the root can significantly affect the distance that messages must travel. For example, many networks include a plurality of switches designated as access switches that provide connectivity to LANs, end stations, etc., and a plurality of backbone switches that, in turn, interconnect the various access switches. If the root is located at an access switch and the principal server utilized by the end stations (i.e., clients) is coupled to a backbone switch, the average distance between end stations and the primary server may be quite high, resulting in inefficient network operation. In addition, the backbone switches may become partitioned as ports between them are blocked. Id. at col. 3, ll. 17–29; see also id. at col. 10, ll. 26–29 (the “location of the root may affect the average distance (i.e., the average number of hops) a message travels and/or cause undesirable partitioning of backbone switches”). Thus, the location of the root is not an unimportant consideration—it affects the distance messages must travel and can cause backbone switches to be partitioned. See id. Gai, therefore, discloses that “[t]o reduce the average distance and avoid partitioning of the backbone switches, it is desirable to locate the root at a backbone switch.”10 Id. at col. 3, ll. 29–31 (emphasis added). Switch 117 in Petitioner’s modified Figure 1 is an access switch, not a backbone switch. See id. at col. 6, ll. 10–12 (“Access switches are preferably coupled to entities (e.g., LANs, end stations, etc.) whereas backbone switches provide the interconnections between access switches.”).” slip op. at 44

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “We agree with Petitioner. For purposes of claim 1, which does not recite “downstream” communication of dummy traffic (unlike claims 11, 12, 23, and 24), the only modification to Figure 1 is the addition of switch 117 and server 112e—otherwise, in Petitioner’s analysis, Gai’s method operates exactly as described when a failure occurs at root port 3 of switch 114. See Pet. 69–73, 81–85; Tr. 47:20–48:2. That modification is expressly supported by Gai, which discloses the following: Rapid reconfiguration entity 234 similarly generates one or more separate multicast messages 400 for each remaining entity directly coupled to access switch 114 (i.e., entities or end stations on LANs 102–104). In each message 400, entity 234 loads SA field 414 with the address of the corresponding entity. Each of these messages are similarly forwarded by access switch 114 through the new forwarding port (i.e., port number four). In addition, entity 234 generates and transmits one or more multicast messages 400 for entities reachable through switch 114 on ports other than its root port. For example, if port number seven at switch 114 were coupled to another access switch, entity 234 would transmit multicast messages 400 carrying the source address of entities directly coupled to this additional access switch as well. Thus, at least one multicast message 400 is generated and transmitted for each entity directly coupled to or downstream of access switch 114 (relative to the root). As set forth above, upon receipt of these multicast messages 400, the other devices within network 100 update their corresponding filtering databases with the new destination ports, as necessary. Ex. 1005, col. 13, l. 50–col. 14, l. 3 (emphasis added). Gai thus expressly contemplates the addition of “another access switch” coupled to port 7 of switch 114. Switch 117 in the modified Figure 1 is such a switch. See PO Resp. 30 (Patent Owner arguing that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that switch 117 is an access switch”); Ex. 1018, 84:14–85:9 (Dr. Olivier agreeing that switch 117 is an “access switch”). And because an “access switch” has “ports that connect to LANs and/or to other network endpoints, such as user computer systems,” and the above disclosure mentions “entities directly coupled to th[e] additional access switch,” switch 117 would be directly connected to a device like server 112e as well. See Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 31–33; Ex. 1005, col. 13, ll. 59–63; supra Section II.B. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that Gai in its written description expressly discloses the particular “variation of the topology” of Figure 1 that Petitioner asserts. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 165. Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Gai to meet the claims.” PO Resp. 14–16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 47–49). Patent Owner’s arguments are primarily directed to Petitioner’s asserted modification for its “1A” theory. See id. To the extent Patent Owner’s arguments apply to claim 1 and “1B,” we disagree, as Gai expressly describes the asserted modification to Figure 1 (i.e., adding an access switch connected to port 7 of switch 114). Thus, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the method of claim 1 based on Gai’s full disclosure.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,917,986 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,917,986
• Microsoft Corporation v. X1 Discovery, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jul 22, 2025 · IPR2025-00255 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–27 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 23, and 27 are obvious over Wilcox, Londergan, Raskin, and Wu.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “c) Summary For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has made sufficient showings at this stage of the proceeding that the Wilcox-Londergan-Raskin- Wu combination teaches or suggests every limitation in claims 1, 23, and 27 of the ’139 patent, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine those teachings and suggestions to arrive at the inventions recited in claims 1, 23, and 27, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges to claims 1, 23, and 27 based on the combination of Wilcox, Londergan, Raskin, and Wu. Accordingly, institution of an inter partes review is appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not comment on Petitioner’s formulation or offer any competing formulation in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. Mr. Haeberli, however, testifies as follows in his Declaration: 29. In my opinion, the POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of the Asserted Patents would have had a (1) a Bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as computer science, electric engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and (2) have 2–4 years of experience in working with computing devices and have an understanding of indexed search systems utilized by such computing devices. 30. I am aware that Dr. Terveen has provided its own definition . . . . 31. I believe Dr. Terveen’s definition is not meaningfully different from my definition of a POSITA. My opinions would not change regardless of which definition of POSITA is applied. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–31. We find Mr. Haeberli’s formulation to be consistent with the evidence of record at this stage of the proceeding, including the asserted prior art and the ’139 patent, and, accordingly, we adopt and apply that definition for purposes of this Decision. B.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “missing in the prior art. Prelim. Resp. 29–34. Limitations [1.4], [23.5], and [27.4] each recite: “wherein the first and second partial search strings are separated by a string separator character in the first search field.” Ex. 1001, 29:47–49, 31:33–35, 32:29–31. Petitioner asserts that both of the Lotus Notes references teach receiving a first search string and a second search string in a single search field, separated by “a string separator character (e.g., a Boolean AND operator and/or a comma).” Pet. 25–26 (footnote omitted). We are not fully persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. In particular, the evidence does not support Petitioner’s argument that a Boolean operator such as “AND” is a string separator character. Patent Owner has pointed to intrinsic and extrinsic evidence demonstrating that a string separator character consists of just one character.17 Consequently, based on the 17 As Patent Owner argues, the intrinsic evidence does not support this interpretation of the claim language. Prelim. Resp. 31–32. “First, the ’139 patent distinguishes between string separator characters (such as space, comma, etc.) and ‘modifiers’ (such as AND, OR, NOT, etc.).” Id. at 31; compare Ex. 1001, 30:19–22 (claim 6, “string separator character”), with id. at 31:22–26 (claim 22, Boolean “modifiers”). Moreover, Patent Owner persuasively argues that “a POSITA would not understand Boolean operators such as ‘AND’ to function as string separator characters” and “would have known that the operator AND is a search syntax instruction rather than a string separator.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 1059, 162; Ex. 2001 ¶ 110). Even Petitioner acknowledges in a footnote that it may not be appropriate to include the Boolean AND operator in the definition of “string separator character.” Petitioner argues:” slip op. at 28

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

    “one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “reverting some of the changes that had been made to Lotus Notes R5’s ‘Search Builder’ to make it more similar to Lotus Notes earlier 3.0’s ‘Query Builder.’” Prelim. Resp. 16. The issue, however, is not whether “over the years Lotus Notes moved away from a unified search field[,]” as Patent Owner suggests. Id. at 14. The issue is what “inferences and creative steps” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed, based on Wilcox and Londergan, when designing a new method and system for search indexing. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner’s argument is that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consider Wilcox and Londergan together in order to “obtain a more complete and comprehensive understanding of the Lotus Notes system,” which in turn would have inspired certain inferences and creative steps that would have resulted in the portions of the claimed invention allegedly disclosed in Wilcox and/or Londergan. Pet. 22. We do not agree with Patent Owner that this argument can only be the result of improper hindsight bias. See Prelim. Resp. 16–17. At this stage of the proceedings and based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Wilcox and Londergan.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,633,139
• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Network System Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00343 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Rădulescu2004 and OCP; the Board did not reach the Weber-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 13

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (2006). “[T]he use of the word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part); Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[This] presumption may be rebutted if the properly construed claim limitation itself recites sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1001, 4:46–50. This passage indicates that the interconnect can be a network on a chip and the network on a chip can include wires and buses. That does not necessarily mean that the interconnect can be just wires or buses; rather, it discloses that the interconnect can include wires and buses. In context, the disclosure regarding wires and buses does not support construing the corresponding structure broadly enough to encompass just wires and buses. The networks that constitute the corresponding structure, however, could include networks with wires and buses. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner that the corresponding structure for the interconnect means should not include a mere bus, switch, and point-to-point wire and instead find that the corresponding structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 is a network, which the ’052 patent describes as a multi-hop interconnection between modules separated by one or more network nodes. See Ex. 1001, 2:33–37. Because this structure corresponds to the construction of “interconnect means” proposed by Patent Owner and adopted by the district courts in the TI and Qualcomm litigations (see supra Section III.C.3.b), and we do not rely in our analysis below on a recourse to “equivalents thereto” as permitted by § 112 ¶ 6, we note that our ultimate conclusions on the unpatentability of the challenged claims would be the same if § 112 ¶ 6 did not apply. iii. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we construe “interconnect means” to cover the structure described in the Specification corresponding to the specified functions of “coupling said plurality of processing modules (M, S)” in the context of claim 6 and “coupling said plurality of processing modules (M, S)” and “enabling a connection-based communication having a set of connection properties” in the context of claims 1 and 7—i.e., a “multi-hop interconnection between modules separated by one or more network nodes”—and equivalents thereof.” slip op. at 28

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

    “standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been 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 of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,594,052 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,594,052
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00175 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Biswas and Kumar; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–64). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The parties submit that no claim construction is necessary. Pet. 14; PO Resp. 15. We have not been presented with the need to construe any claim terms for this Decision. D.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Biswas and Kumar. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have known to use the masking techniques exemplified by Kumar to implement the disclosed operation in Biswas of edge routers providing hosts with port number ranges. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 97–101. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Biswas and Kumar.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “This disclosure is inconsistent with any suggestion that the Fangman system, when routing a telephone call to its destination, identifies the private IP address of the destination telephone by determining the port range to which the port number of the destination telephone belongs. When Fangman describes the NAPPT process, it does not indicate that port ranges are used, but rather repeatedly states that port numbers are used: The [service gateway] receives a data packet from the IP device, including a public destination IP address . . . a destination port number . . . and source information, NAPPTs the data packet, using the [public destination IP address] and the [destination port number] to identify the [IP telephone] . . . . Ex. 1024, code (57). Performing NAPPT on the data packet received from the destination may include using the public destination IP address and the destination port number to uniquely identify the IP telephone, and changing the public destination IP address to a private source IP address of the IP telephone while leaving the destination port number unchanged. Ex. 1024, 4:28–33. The SG 170 may maintain a table of semi-permanent mappings of the external IP address and ports to the internal hosts and ports. Ex. 1024, 8:49–51.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,693,369 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,693,369
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Instituted
  PTAB · May 2, 2025 · IPR2024-01450 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  Instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Dziong and Sathyanath.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’088 patent (January 2006), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately four years of experience working in the field of network communications, including experience with [Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)] tunnels and bandwidth allocation,” where “[a]dditional work experience can substitute for specific educational background, and vice versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable and familiar with the network communications technologies discussed in [the Specification of the ’088 patent], including bandwidth reservations, quality of service techniques, routing protocols (including Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)), tunneling protocols (including [MPLS]), resource reservations (including Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)), traffic engineering (including relevant extensions to OSPF, IS-IS, and RSVP), and ring networking standards (e.g., Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and resilient packet ring (RPR) defined by IEEE 802.17). Id. Patent Owner states that “Petitioner’s definition . . . is acceptable for” purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8 n.3. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’088 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’088 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner argues that “no claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 12–13. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Preliminary Response. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted

    “Patent Owner, however, does not explain sufficiently why any of these issues demonstrate a failure to teach limitation [1.1]. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that Dziong identifies “two or more candidate routes” (i.e., A-B-C-D and A-C-D) for a “new connection” (i.e., a new recovery path to protect primary path SRLG 4 in the event of failure) with a “requested bandwidth” (i.e., 15 units) sufficient to protect against failure. See Pet. 27–31 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 70, 89, 90, 104, 105). The 15 units are the “units of demand” on SRLG 4 that must be protected. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 89 (“[E]ach solid line represents all of the demands that have the same link-detour path, which is represented by a corresponding broken line. For example, solid line 606 in SRLG 4 corresponds to one or more demands totaling 15 units of bandwidth between nodes A and D.”), 90. A link in a potential recovery path for that demand on SRLG 4, therefore, would need to have “sufficient recovery bandwidth” to protect against failure (i.e., at least 15 units). Id. ¶¶ 36, 104. That is reflected in the “SRLG 4 failure” column of Figure 6(b) for link A-B (part of the A-B-C-D recovery path shown in blue in Figure 6(a) above). On this record, we do not see why the fact that link A-B also protects against failures of SRLG 3 and 5 and has its own 12 units of demand, or the fact that SRLG 4 also has another 24 units of demand (which link A-B does not protect against), contradicts Petitioner’s position regarding Dziong and limitation [1.1]. See id. ¶¶ 89–90 (“link A-B is not part of the link-detour path for the other 24 XC units of demand on SRLG 4”). At this stage, we find that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Dziong teaches limitation [1.1]. Therefore, we need not evaluate any additional arguments regarding Sathyanath at this time. See Pet. 31–32; Prelim. Resp. 14–16.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We disagree based on the current record. Dziong refers to both “link-based” and “path-based” recovery. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6–8. And the two methods are similar in various ways, as Dziong recognizes. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 69 (“While some of the algorithms utilized in a link-based scheme are related to path-based recovery algorithms, there are significant modifications and special considerations that are made in the case of link-based recovery.”), 103 (“In some areas, the issues associated with recovery path calculation for link-based recovery [are] analogous to recovery path calculations for path-based restoration . . . .”). Dziong also purports to incorporate Sathyanath’s application by reference. Id. ¶ 1. And, as Petitioner points out, the references have similar disclosures and similar discussions of bandwidth sharing. See Pet. 1, 20–22; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 10–12, 36–39, 60, 65, 88; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4, 12–13, 41–45, 200. Thus, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider combining the teachings of Dziong and Sathyanath. See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.”); In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming an obviousness determination where two “references both teach processes directed to making the same class of products” and minor differences between the disclosures did not “negate the motivation to combine”). Second, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “fails to identify specific teachings in Sathyanath that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to implement in Dziong with a reasonable expectation of success” and “does not explain how the features would have been combined or why there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner, however, only mentions Petitioner’s introductory statement regarding reasons to combine and does not address the substance of Petitioner’s arguments for claim 1, where Petitioner explains how it is relying on Sathyanath as a secondary reference. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 22–23). For example, regarding the “sharing definition” of limitation [1.2], Petitioner argues that because Dziong only gives “limited details about the data format used for sharing” reserved bandwidth information, “it would have been obvious to consider . . . Sathyanath’s examples,” relying on two particular alleged “sharing definition[s]” in Sathyanath (i.e., the “aggregate node-link vector” and “TE/Share database”). Pet. 36–39. Based on the current record, we preliminarily find that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing, supported by the testimony of Dr. Mir, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such data formats to share reserved bandwidth information in the system of Dziong, with a reasonable expectation of success. See id.; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–39, 72–79.” slip op. at 38

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,596,088
• Whatfix Inc. v. Walkme Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00065 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable under the Symons and Williams, Allen, or Krishnan and Radhakrishnan obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner proposes that a “person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) in the field of the ’317 patent would have [had a] bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science and two years of experience working on NLP [natural language processing] or automation processes” or “[a]lternatively . . . would have [had] five to six years of experience working on NLP or automation processes.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–45). We adopted Petitioner’s proposal for purposes of the Decision on Institution, explaining that it appeared to be consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’317 patent. Dec. 12. is inconsistent with the asserted Symons prior art and with factors (4)–(6) set forth in Daiichi Sankyo. PO Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 36–45). According to Patent Owner, the technology of the ’317 patent was “evolving rapidly” and the level of sophistication in the technology was “relatively low” in November 2017. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1004, 1–2; Ex. 1009, 2; Ex. 2002 ¶ 42; Ex. 2003 (transcript of June 26, 2024, deposition of Dr. Beigi), 141:2–9, 191:18–197:5; Ex. 2007; Ex. 2008). Further, Patent Owner contends, “[a]ctive work[ers] in the field, like Symons,[8] had less experience than [Dr. Beigi] proposed.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003, 112:12–24). Accordingly, Patent Owner argues, “[t]he evidence of record demonstrates a more appropriate level of skill would [be] a worker who had some education, formal or informal, in computer science and 1–2 years’ work experience with chatbots using NLP and/or automation processes.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 44; Ex. 2002 ¶ 44; Pet. 5–6). “Under Patent Owner’s more appropriate analysis,” Patent Owner contends, “Dr. Beigi’s interpretation of what a POSITA would understand are overstated,” as “[h]e expects a POSITA to have ‘more experience’ (like himself) and apply a more ‘technically correct’ (in his view) understanding of the prior art than less skilled authors and artisans would have understood.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 141:2–9, 191:18–197:5). Nonetheless, Patent Owner argues, “[s]hould the Board continue to apply Petitioner’s” slip op. at 12

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

    “standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been 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 of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). construction” “[f]or purposes of this Petition.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner similarly represents that “[t]he parties agree that the claim terms used in the ’317 Patent claims have their ‘ordinary and custom[ary] meanings of terms’ as would be understood by a POSITA as of November 5, 2017.” PO Resp. 24. After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 35–37). Further, Petitioner asserts, “the Petition relies on Williams, not Symons, for its teachings of a ‘web-based’ target system.” Id. (citing Pet. 40). Petitioner does not, however, address Patent Owner’s main point, i.e., that the Petition relies on Symons’s illustration of its RPA bot purportedly filling in a text input field in the GUI of the Cronos Email Signature Generator for limitation 1[g] but relies on Symons’s illustration of its RPA bot interacting with a widget in Internet Explorer for limitation 1[h], despite the recitation in limitation 1[h] of “interacting with a widget in the GUI.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 38. Dr. Beigi acknowledges that, “[a]ccording to the ’317 patent, a widget is a GUI element,” and he concludes, with reference to Petitioner’s annotated version of the screenshot from page 13 of Exhibit 1006 reproduced above, that “Symon[s]’s GUI button is a widget in a GUI.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 100 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1001, 10:19–21). But neither the Petition, nor the Reply, nor Dr. Beigi’s testimony persuasively explains how a dialog box in Internet Explorer teaches or suggests a widget in the Cronos GUI. The Reply’s contention that “the Petition relies on Williams . . . for its teachings of a ‘web-based’ target system” is unavailing, because the issue is not whether either the Cronos program or Internet Explorer is “web-based”12 but whether Petitioner has identified a teaching or suggestion of an implementation of an automation process that fills in a text input field in a GUI of a web-based target system and interacts with a widget in the same GUI. 12 In this regard, we credit Mr. Zatkovich’s statement that Internet Explorer is local to and resident on the user’s computer. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 161–162; cf. Ex. 2003, 219:24–220:5 (Dr. Beigi testifying that he is “not sure where this Windows software is running”).” slip op. at 39

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s reasoning fails to explain “how the combination of the two references was supposed to work.” See Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017). More specifically, Petitioner fails to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform Krishnan’s automation process (i.e., fulfilling customer requests) by implementing an “automation process by interacting with a Graphical User Interface (GUI)” and “simulating user input to the GUI,” as purportedly taught by Radhakrishnan. Petitioner’s arguments are focused toward using Radhakrishnan’s RPA bot to perform Krishnan’s customer service requests (i.e., automation process) but fail to explain how Radhakrishnan’s RPA bot’s mirroring of the user’s operations (i.e., the simulation on the displayed user interface) as applied in Krishnan would work or provide sufficient reasoning to do so. See Personal Web, 848 F.3d at 993–994 (“[I]t does not imply a motivation to pick out . . . two references and combine them to arrive at the claimed invention”); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[M]ere identification in the prior art of each element is insufficient to defeat the patentability of the combined subject matter as a whole”).” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 11,558,317 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,558,317
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01248 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11, 16, and 21 unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’071 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Neither party proposes a specific construction of any claim term, although Petitioner contends each term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 16; see generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because the meaning of the terms is not in dispute and an express construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We find the Petition lacking in particularity because it does not clearly identify what aspect of Jin is alleged to teach the unique signal parameters (or unique estimated signal parameters) recited in claim 1. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if — (3) the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim . . . .”). First, as reflected above, the Petition asserts that something called a “unique pilot parameter” teaches the recited unique estimated signal parameters. But “unique pilot parameter” is not a term or phrase recited in Jin. See Prelim. Resp. 19 (arguing the same). So, when Petitioner states “Jin discloses that the base station uses the unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique estimated signal parameters’) to ‘identify which user (i.e., mobile terminal) has transmitted the received data,’” it is not clear what element in Jin Petitioner intends to identify by the term “unique pilot parameter.” Dr. Min’s testimony does not help resolve the ambiguity in the Petition. In particular, Dr. Min also refers to a “unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique signal parameter’) for each user.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 89. But, as noted above, Jin does not disclose an element referred to as a “pilot parameter” and it is not clear what element Dr. Min intended to identify in Jin.8” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,814,071
• Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. NEC CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01239 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14–18, 20–23, and 25–29 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed code-rate determination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been 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 of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, supported by the testimony of Dr. Reader, argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, a related field, and 2–3 years’ experience researching, designing, or developing content delivery systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 67–69). Petitioner further argues “[o]ne having less education but more practical experience, or more education and less experience, might also meet this standard.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition or offer an alternative level or skill in the art. PO Resp. 12 (citing Pet. 14; Ex. 2012). Instead, “[f]or the purposes of this PO Response only, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of POSITA.” Id. Thus, on this record, the parties agree upon the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, and this level is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’101 patent and the prior art references that disclose content delivery systems. For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “the gap between the playback deadline and the target schedule, (td(n) − tT(n)), is the target buffer duration, i.e., ‘the desired client buffer duration (in client time).’” Id. at 22–23 (quoting Chou ¶ 74). Petitioner also argues that “in efforts to match upper bound tb(n) to target schedule tT(n), Chou takes into consideration the time duration between target schedule tT(n) and the playback deadline td(n).” Thus, it appears Petitioner assembles three separate and distinct time intervals from Chou’s timing diagrams and equations to construct one contiguous time interval equivalent to claim 1’s remaining time. However, Chou does not recognize the time interval that Petitioner posits, and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that this combined time interval exists as a teaching in the prior art and is used as part of any step or decision involved in determining the code rate. As admitted by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Reader, Petitioner’s analysis “used the claims as a road map to find limitations in the prior art.” Ex. 2015, 76:4–9 (Reader Deposition Transcript). See also Tr. 28:20–31:2 (Petitioner’s response to whether identification of and integration of separate time ranges described by Chou is hindsight reconstruction, Petitioner argues Chou’s device operates such that code rate is based on remaining time). Under the circumstances, this is improper because Petitioner and Dr. Reader do not justify this combination of separately identified time ranges except based solely on hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. However, even if that were not the case, we are not persuaded that Chou or the other asserted prior art references suggest using the combined time interval td(n) − ta(n) as the basis for any decision related to determining the code rate.” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “d) Analysis In our Institution Decision, although expressing some uncertainty with respect to certain of Patent Owner’s arguments on the preliminary record then before us, “we [were] not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that [(1)] Wang teaches [1d]’s code rate” (Dec. 53 (citing Pet. 62–65) or (2) “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chou and Wang” (id. at 54 (citing Pet. 74)). Petitioner does not dispute those determinations in its Reply or otherwise. Furthermore, Petitioner does not address or otherwise dispute Patent Owner’s arguments challenging the asserted obviousness of claims 1, 4–6, 10–16, and 19–26 over the combined teachings of Chou and Wang. Thus, for at least the reasons set forth in our Institution Decision, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to show that (1) one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Chou and Wang or (2) the combined teaching of Chou and Wang renders limitation 1(d) obvious. e) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Chou and Wang.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 8,752,101 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,752,101
• Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. NEC CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2025 · IPR2023-01241 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10–13, 19, 21, 23, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over Ueda, the SIP Standard, and the SDP Standard, with Cohee added for claims 11, 13, 19, and 23.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience researching, designing, or developing content delivery systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 36–40). Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 3 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 22). Because it is uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’427 patent, we adopt the above articulation of the level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the term should be construed according to its ordinary and customary meaning, and that we need not construe the term explicitly because the meaning of the term is not relevant to the contested issues in the proceeding. 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 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered all the evidence of record relating to Mr. Taniguchi’s activities during the relevant time frame, we find that Patent Owner has not produced sufficient corroborating evidence to show that Mr. Taniguchi’s work on reducing to practice the claimed invention was reasonably continuous during the critical period between September 19, 2008 (the filing date of Ueda), and November 18, 2008 (the filing date of the Japanese patent application). Although there is corroborating evidence of diligence beginning on November 6, 2008, when Mr. Taniguchi transmitted a draft application to the Baba law firm, there is no evidence of any diligence prior to that date, other than Mr. Taniguchi’s own testimony. We do not agree with Patent Owner that the evidence of Mr. Taniguchi’s other activities for NEC, or research relating to IPTV, corroborate Mr. Taniguchi’s reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Although these activities may have something to do with the general subject matter of IPTV, Patent Owner has not shown any nexus between these activities and the challenged claims. See Naber, 567 F.2d at 385 (“It is well settled that, to satisfy the ‘reasonable diligence’ requirement . . . , the work relied on must ordinarily be directly related to reduction to practice of the invention . . . in issue.” (citing cases)). Although Mr. Taniguchi doubtlessly spent substantial time preparing the application he completed on November 6, 2008 (see Ex. 2017), there is no corroborating evidence that this work was reasonably continuous during the critical period. As far as the corroborating evidence attests, Mr. Taniguchi could have done no work on the draft until early November, or he could have worked on the draft briefly in August and put it aside until early November. Considering all the evidence as to Mr. Taniguchi’s activities, we find that Patent Owner has not met its burden of producing corroborating evidence that the named inventors of the ’427 patent exercised reasonably continuous diligence during the critical period when Ueda was filed until the constructive reduction to practice that occurred on November 18, 2008. Therefore, we determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ueda is prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “In general, we disagree with Patent Owner that, in showing a reason to incorporate the SIP Standard’s teachings about proxy servers, Petitioner must necessarily show that Ueda’s system was deficient or inferior. A patent challenger “does not need to show that there was a known problem with the prior art system in order to articulate the required rational underpinning for the proposed combination.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1002–03 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also, “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. For this reason and the specific reasons discussed below, we find Patent Owner’s arguments unpersuasive. The evidence of record suggests that it would have been within the ordinary skill in the art to modify Ueda’s system by replacing direct communication between content-providing device 150 and servers 191 or 192 with an indirect connection in the form of proxy servers using well-known, predictable techniques as described in the SIP Standard.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 9,769,427 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,769,427
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00913 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 6–12, 14, and 16–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim in each petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “First, we find no basis for exercising our discretion to deny institution with regard to the Juniper case because that case does not yet have a scheduling order in place, and, as Petitioner points out, the median time to trial in that district is 34.6 months, which puts the trial in approximately July 2026, so there is nothing in the record to indicate that a trial will occur before our deadline for a final written decision in these proceedings. See Fintiv at 5 (“When the patent owner raises an argument for discretionary denial under NHK due to an earlier trial date, the Board’s decisions have balanced [Fintiv] factors [1–6].” (emphasis added)); Pet. 67 (arguing that “the court has neither entered a schedule nor set a trial date”); Prelim. Resp. 18 (acknowledging that “the court has not yet entered a schedule or set a trial date for the Juniper case”). Second, following submission of the papers in these proceedings, the Cisco case was dismissed on December 26, 2024. Ex. 3001. Accordingly, there will be no trial in the Cisco case and thus we are not persuaded that the interests of efficiency and integrity of the system would be best served by invoking our authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied

    “Petitioner filed both of its petitions in the instant proceedings on the same day, May 31, 2024, and the prior petition in IPR2024-00506 was filed by a different party previously sued for infringement of the ’394 patent in a different district court case. Therefore, there are no serial petitions, as that term is used in General Plastic, filed in these IPRs. However, “our application of the General Plastic factors is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner. Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors.” Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). Petitioner argues that “no significant relationship exists” between it and Cisco, as they were “accused of infringing the ’394 patent with different products in different court proceedings . . . and have not coordinated regarding the ’394 patent, the separately accused products, or the filing of petitions for IPR.” Pet. 70. Patent Owner provides no evidence of a significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco, but nonetheless argues that factors 1–5 favor discretionary denial anyway, because Petitioner had knowledge of the Cisco petition, citing the Board’s decision in Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550, Paper 8 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2020) (“Ericsson”), for the proposition that Petitioner’s use of the Cisco petition as a roadmap ties the interests of the petitioners together. Prelim. Resp. 26. We are not persuaded by this assertion. First, Ericsson is not a precedential or informative decision and is not binding on us or informative to our analysis. Moreover, in that case there were five prior petitions that covered all of the challenged claims, and the petitioner admitted crafting its petition based on its review of the prior petitions. Ericsson at 3, 11. Petitioner here has not made such a concession, and moreover, Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that Petitioner actually did use the petition in IPR2024-00506 as a roadmap. Under the circumstances, we find no evidence that Petitioner used the prior petition filed by Cisco as a roadmap, particularly when none of the timing associated with the prior petition was within its control. We find no significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco. “[W]here, as here, the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Videndum Prod. Sols., Inc. v. Rotolight Ltd., IPR2023-01218, Paper 12 at 6 (Vidal Apr. 19, 2024). Accordingly, based on the particular facts of these proceedings, including the points addressed above, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petitions on that basis.” slip op. at 17

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

    “5. Conclusion Regarding Ground 1 Based on the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 1. Petitioner also contends that claim 11, which is an apparatus claim for a network element that otherwise has similar limitations as claim 1, is rendered obvious for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. Pet. 57–61. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s arguments for claim 11 for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 10–16. Based on the current record, we also find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 11. We need not determine at this time whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 17, also challenged in Ground 1. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 41

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

    “sufficient showing that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Hu’s concept of aggregating ports to form a high-capacity port for transmitting multicast streams to the network device disclosed by Blease, and we do not agree that Blease teaches away from incorporating such aggregation. Both Blease and Hu are directed to similar subject matter, processing multicast stream requests, and Hu’s link aggregation addresses the problem of potentially overloading a port when doing so. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (57) (“The network device transmits multicast traffic to the subscriber devices.”); Ex. 1007, claim 17 (“A network device to allocate media streams . . . .”), 1:20–29 (disclosing that, if “insufficient bandwidth [is allocated] to video streams, the quality of service degrades”); see Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“That [two prior art references] address the same problem and that [one of the references] was a known way to address that problem is precisely the reason that there’s a motivation to combine under KSR and our precedent.”). On this record, we are persuaded that applying Hu’s port aggregation teaching to Blease’s router would be the application of a known technique to improve the router to allow it to provide multicast streams that require higher bandwidth with predicable results. Pet. 28; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–21. As pointed out by Petitioner, these two concepts could be combined together in a straightforward manner and applied to streams that require high-capacity ports, a technique already applied elsewhere in Blease to other ports, so a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–94; see Elekta Ltd. v. Zap Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Evidence of reasonable expectation of success, just like evidence of a motivation to combine, ‘may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.’”) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). On this record, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Blease teaches away from using aggregated ports to form a high-capacity link because “Blease’s disclosure is clear that the focus of its multicast techniques is to reduce, not increase, the amount of multicast traffic flowing through network.” Prelim. Resp. 14. The discussion in Blease of minimizing the bandwidth does not relate to restricting the bandwidth required for a particular stream as Patent Owner seems to assert, but rather to eliminating duplicate transmissions of the same multicast stream to be delivered to multiple subscribers. See Ex. 1005, 2:39–42, 4:50–56 (“The multicast transmission techniques described herein may significantly reduce the amount of multicast traffic . . . . For example, regardless of the number of subscriber devices[] connected to the same network switch that request the same multicast stream, [the] network device[] only sends one copy of the multicast stream to the network switch.”). Therefore, aggregating ports to accommodate transmission of a single multicast stream that requires more bandwidth is a different concept that is unrelated to the discussion in Blease about minimizing bandwidth by increasing efficiency.” slip op. at 37

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,014,394

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.