- Xilinx, Inc. v. Polaris Innovations LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00517 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because neither Slemmer alone nor Slemmer with Gasbarro showed a reasonable likelihood of proving the claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’473 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states that “[f]or the limited purpose of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, but it reserves the right to do so if trial is instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 11. For purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’473 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’473 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s unopposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“because it is not dispositive—the art teaches the claims under any construction.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner addresses constructions for two claim terms recited in claims 1 and 20—“outputting data to said bus that is other than data which would be output to said bus during normal operation” and “outputting no data to the bus.” Prelim. Resp. 11–16. Patent Owner asserts that the term “outputting data to said bus that is other than data which would be output to said bus during normal operation” should be construed to mean “instead of the data which would be output to the bus by the circuit component during normal operation, outputting data to the bus that is other than the data which would be output to the bus during normal operation.” Id. at 11–12. As for the claim term “outputting no data to the bus,” Patent Owner argues that the term should be interpreted to mean “outputting no data to the bus when and so long as the circuit component is being tested.” Id. at 12–16. Based on the record presented, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“not teach “outputting no data to said bus” “during testing” as recited in claim 1 (limitation [1.3]) or “while testing” as recited in claim 20 (limitation [20.3]). Prelim. Resp. 29–34. We agree with Patent Owner that none of the operations in Figure 9 of Slemmer cited by Petitioner describe any operation performed “during testing” or “while testing,” as recited in limitation [1.3] or limitation [20.3]. As discussed above in Section III.C.2, Slemmer describes that line T is used to enable the special test mode “prior to such time as special test operations are performed.” Ex. 1005, 35:22–30 (emphasis added). Slemmer also describes that “upon the entry into a special test mode at time t3 of FIG. 9, line T is driven by test mode enable circuitry 29 to a high logic level.” Id. at 36:22–24 (emphasis added). Slemmer further describes that “with line 32 from parallel test circuitry 28 remains high (i.e., the parallel test either passed, or has not taken place),” terminals DQ “go into an active state at time t4” to present a low impedance state. Id. at 36:26–32 (emphasis added). Thus, Slemmer discloses that the enabling of the special test mode at time t3 or time t4 described in Figure 9—which Petitioner relies on as teaching “outputting no data to said bus” (at time t3) and “outputting data to said bus that is other than data which would be output to said bus during normal operation” (at time t4)—takes place before the test operations are performed.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,701,473 - PTAB · Sep 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00516 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, and 8–13 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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.” Taking into account the arguments and evidence presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’589 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Citing testimony from Dr. Melvin, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the relevant time would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science and two years of experience” or “equivalent education, work, or experience in this field.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–34). According to Dr. Melvin, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 33. Patent Owner states that “[f]or the limited purpose of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, but it reserves the right to do so in the event that trial is instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 11. For purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’589 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’589 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s unopposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “construction of terms is unnecessary because it is not dispositive to this case—the art teaches the limitations under any construction under the Phillips standard.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner states that we need not construe any claim term for purposes of this Decision. See Prelim. Resp. 11. Based on the record presented, we need not construe any claim term for purposes of this Decision. 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))). C. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability Based on Lee or the Combination of” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“motivation to combine the references because “[w]hile Lee does expressly illustrate the ‘circuitry’ that is initialized by the reset signal ϕRST output from its initialization circuit, Iketani illustrates and describes in detail the various circuits, including the control circuit, that receive and are initialized by such an initialization signal.” Pet. 59 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 140). Petitioner further asserts that the proposed combination “amounts to a simple substitution of one component (i.e., Lee’s initialization circuit) for another (i.e., Iketani’s power on reset circuit), and a POSITA would have understood that this substitution would yield predicable results.” Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 143).” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,157,589 - PTAB · Jul 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00255 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 5, and 8–23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). In applying this framework, we consider the Becton, Dickinson3 factors that address discretion to deny when a petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; 3 Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”). during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8 at 17–18. Factors (a), (b), and (d), relate to whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, and factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner demonstrates that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9–11. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’287 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 5, and 8–23 of the ’287 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as mechanical engineering, physics, product design, or a related field” and “2–4 years of experience in working with electronic displays and have an understanding of product design issues and failure modes associated with electronic displays.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 37). In the alternative, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have had 5–7 years of experience in the field working with electronic displays and have a similar understanding of product design issues and failure modes associated with electronic displays.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 37). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art, or address Petitioner’s proposed definition. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,629,287 - Apple Inc. v. Spacetime3d, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jul 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00343 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–13, 15–17, and 19 are obvious over Anthony and Hanggie, and claims 6, 9, 14, and 18 over Anthony, …
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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.” After considering the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, and Preliminary Sur-reply, we determine that the information presented establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’654 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Our analysis of discretionary denial 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 Memo”). Under the Director Memo, “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc.,[3] the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Director Memo 3; see also id. at 9 (“the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.”).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“were presented to the Office.” The Board uses a two-part framework for evaluating arguments under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). “Previously presented art includes art made of record by the Examiner, and art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent.” Id. at 7–8. “[T]he Becton, Dickinson factors provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” Id. at 9 (footnote omitted). The non-exclusive Becton, Dickinson factors are: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph). Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework, i.e., whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics at 10. Factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to the second part of that framework, i.e., “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Citing testimony from Dr. Fuchs, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of September 13, 2005 (the earliest possible priority date of the ’654 patent) would have had “at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in the field working with 2D and 3D graphical user interfaces.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–32). Petitioner further states that “[s]uperior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31– 32). Although Patent Owner acknowledges Petitioner’s statement, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Pet. 10). Nor does Patent Owner propose a definition of its own at this time. Id. Instead, Patent Owner states: “at least the inventor of the ‘654 Patent, E. Eddie Bakhash, is a POSITA, and [Patent Owner] reserves the right to further address this issue at a later point in time if necessary.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’654 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’654 patent, and the cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,304,654 - PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00220 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7–13, and 16, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’322 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7–13, and 16 of the ’322 patent.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“explain how the references are purported to be combined or how the proposed combinations allegedly teach each element of the claims” and that such “insufficient analysis does not warrant institution.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has “taken a number of improper shortcuts, rendering their arguments unclear and imprecise, and improperly shifting the burden of deciphering them onto Patent Owner and the Board,” and “therefore have failed in their burden of arguing with sufficient particularity.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner sets out the reasons why it believes that each of the twelve asserted grounds lack particularity. Prelim. Resp. 18–31. After considering Patent Owner’s arguments, we disagree that Petitioner’s challenges lack particularity, because, as discussed below, we understand Petitioner’s arguments and asserted combinations. Accordingly, we decline to deny the Petition for lack of sufficient particularity. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition . . . may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.”).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Patent Owner argues that “the level of skill would be low,” and offers the following level of ordinary skill in the art: A bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as mechanical or electrical engineering, physics, applied physics, or a related field. Such a person would also have had 2–4 years of experience in working with electronic displays including thermal management associated with electronic displays. Alternatively, a POSITA would have had 4–6 years of experience in the field and would have developed a similar understanding of thermal management associated with electronic displays. Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2004, 12–13 (Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in the ITC)). Patent Owner adds that a POSITA “does not necessarily have an understanding of product design issues and failure modes associated with electronic displays.” Id. at 10–11. Neither party argues that the outcome of the case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as mechanical engineering, physics, applied physics, product design, or a related field, and would also have had 2–4 years of experience working with electronic failure modes associated with such displays, or 5–7 years of experience in the field working with electronic displays and would have developed a similar understanding of thermal management, product design issues, and failure modes associated with electronic displays.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“Construing a means-plus-function limitation includes two steps: (1) identifying the claimed function, and (2) identifying the corresponding structure in the specification of the patent that performs the function. IPCom GmbH & Co. v. HTC Corp., 861 F.3d 1362, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017). constricted convection plate and the posterior surface of the electronic display,” as recited in claim 9, is a means-plus-function clause. See Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (“use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). We also agree, on this record, with Petitioner’s identification of the claimed function as “forcing air between the constricted convection plate and the posterior surface of the electronic display.” Pet. 12. Petitioner identifies the corresponding structure as “one or more fans 52, air conditioning unit 110, and their equivalents.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–67, 7:38–54; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–77). We agree with Petitioner that the ’322 patent teaches that the corresponding structure is one or more fans or an air conditioning unit. The Specification repeatedly states that one or more fans are used to draw air between the posterior surface and the constricted convection plate. See Ex. 1001, 2:67–3:2 (“one or more fans may be used to force air” between the constricted convection plate and the posterior surface), 6:2–7 (“In FIG. 5B, one or more fans 52 are used to draw ambient air between the posterior display surface 22 and the constricted convection plate 30. In FIG. 5C, one or more fans 52 are used to force ambient air between the posterior display surface 22 and the constrict convection plate 30.”), 6:60–67 (identifying “one or more fans” as a means for forcing air within the system and increasing the speed at which the air travels), 7:45–48 (“fan 52 may be associated with the entrance opening 62 and may force air” between the constricted convection plate and the posterior surface). The Specification also teaches that, in Figure 5E, “an air conditioning unit 110 is used to both cool the air and to force the cooled air” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,173,322 - PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00199 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 on all six asserted § 103(a) grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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.” After considering the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’595 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“After considering Patent Owner’s arguments, we disagree that Petitioner’s challenges lack particularity, because, as discussed below, we understand Petitioner’s arguments and asserted combinations. Accordingly, we decline to deny the Petition for lack of sufficient particularity. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition . . . may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . .”).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Neither party argues that the outcome of the case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’595 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’595 patent, and cited prior art, we determine that a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as mechanical engineering, physics, applied physics, product design, or a related field, and would also have had 2–4 years of experience working with electronic displays, including the thermal management, product design issues, and failure modes, associated with such displays, or 5–7 years of experience in the field working with electronic displays and would have developed a similar understanding of thermal management, product design issues, and failure modes, associated with electronic displays.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of this Decision, we need not construe these terms because the parties do not identify any disputed issue material to the outcome of this Decision that would turn on the constructions. 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
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,854,595 - PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00254 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–13, 15–18, and 20 are unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record before us, we conclude Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’740 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’740 patent on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“error by the Office” in its prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 65
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has not in its Preliminary Response stated its assertion on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner also has not disputed Petitioner’s assertion. At this preliminary stage and on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation, both alternatives, as the level of ordinary skill in the art. They appear consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). B.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“However, because Patent Owner does not dispute, at this stage, that what Petitioner in its substantive analysis has identified as a closed loop in Karppanen and as a closed loop in Yare are closed loops as recited in the challenged claims, we need not construe “closed loop” for purposes of this Decision. Neither party has proposed an express construction for any other term. We find that no express claim construction of any claim term is necessary at this stage of the proceeding. C.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,506,740 - PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00221 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 based on both § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would be shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has not in its Preliminary Response stated its assertion on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner also has not disputed Petitioner’s assertion. At this preliminary stage and on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation, both alternatives, as the level of ordinary skill in the art. They appear consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). B.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“However, because Patent Owner does not dispute at this stage that what Petitioner, in its substantive analysis, has identified as a closed loop in Karppanen and Yare is a closed loop as recited in the challenged claims, we need not construe “closed loop” for purposes of this Decision. Neither party proposed an express construction for any other term. We find that no express claim construction of any claim term is necessary at this stage of the proceeding. C.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner explains that “[one of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that the problem of reflectance at the boundaries may exist in Karppanen’s system as well, due to the ducting 66, i.e., the air gap between the front plate 46 and the display element 26.” Id. at 59 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 132). Petitioner further explains that the benefits to be achieved by making the modification to include a polarizer is to minimize reflectance at the gap and also to reduce the need for any anti-reflective coating. Id. at 62. Petitioner presents another motivation for one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Karppanen as discussed above in light of Larson. It is based on Larson’s description that auxiliary polarizer 20 is an absorbing polarizer and that the auxiliary polarizer minimizes attenuation of light ¶ 133). Petitioner asserts that “[one with ordinary skill in the art] would have also recognized that an absorbing polarizer can absorb at least some polarizations of the ambient light, such as sunlight, which can help improve the contrast and reduce the heating of the display caused by the sunlight.” Id. at 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136). Petitioner further explains that one with ordinary skill in the art would have understood the proposed combination as use of known techniques (anti-reflective materials and/or polarizer) to improve a similar apparatus in the same way to yield predictable results, and would have expected the combination to succeed. Id. at 62–63 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–138). With respect to the foregoing, Patent Owner does not present counter-” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“To the extent there is any praise in the two emails (Exhibits 2001 and 2003), no specific product has been identified and Patent Owner has not shown that any of its products include all the features of any challenged claim. Nor does either email specifically identify a technical feature that is the subject of any praise or recognition. Although the emails do express an interest in outdoor displays, that general category of product, i.e., outdoor, does not identify any specific technical feature which has impressed Samsung SDS America. Further, none of the challenged claims has an “outdoor” requirement and each challenged claim includes additional features not referred to in either the Exhibit 2001 email or the Exhibit 2003 email. Thus, no claim has been shown by Patent Owner as coextensive with any of its products, even assuming that a specific product was praised by Samsung SDS America through the two emails. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not shown sufficient nexus between Exhibits 2001–2003 and any challenged claim. Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner should have first addressed the Exhibit 2001 email, the Exhibit 2003 email, and Exhibit 2002, as objective evidence of nonobvious 11 Patent Owner refers to the Exhibit 2003 email as including language referring to “discussion relative to all weather, outdoor, daylight viewable LCD products” (Prelim. Resp. 16), but we see no such language in the email. discussed above on a lack of sufficient showing of nexus, Exhibits 2001– 2003 are too general and vague to impose on Petitioner an obligation to address them in the Petition, in the first instance, as objective evidence of nonobviousness. Thus, based on the record presented, we decline to impose such an obligation on Petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is very weak. F.” slip op. at 71
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,013,142 - Apple Inc. v. Spacetime3d, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00242 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 and all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on its § 103 challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“However, if Petitioner has provided a Sotera4 stipulation, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a) in view of a District Court action. See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022) (“Director Memo”), at 3, 7, 9.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“The Board uses a two-part framework for evaluating arguments under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). “[T]he Becton, Dickinson factors provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” Id. at 9 (footnote omitted). The non-exclusive Becton, Dickinson factors are: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”). Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework (whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office), and Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to the second part of that framework (previous Office error). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9–11. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“the current record, Petitioner’s contentions, detailed above and supported by the Fuchs Decl., are sufficient to show that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–18 under Grounds I and II. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1–18 of the ’048 patent. Accordingly, we grant the Petition and institute an inter partes review of the ’048 patent. Because a decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition,” PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 & n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018) and corresponding USPTO Guidance, https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial (Apr. 26, 2018)), and because we have determined that at least one ground set forth in the Petition satisfies the threshold for institution, trial is instituted on the proposed grounds. IV. ORDER It is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of claims 1–18 of the ’048 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 55
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends: The range of qualifications for a POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have included a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with 2D and 3D graphical user interfaces. Additional years of experience could substitute for an advanced-level degree (and vice versa). Pet. 13 (citing Fuchs Decl. ¶¶ 28–29) (citations omitted). Patent Owner states that “at least the inventor of the ’048 Patent, E. Eddie Bakhash, is a 6 We recognize that “the strength of each of the Graham factors must be weighed in every case and must be weighted en route to the final determination of obviousness or non-obviousness.” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This includes objective indicia of nonobviousness. To that end, we evaluate Patent Owner’s objective indicia in Section II.I below, and find that evidence unpersuasive on the preliminary record. POSITA, and reserves the right to further address this issue at a later point in time if necessary.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19. Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art appears reasonable, and we adopt that definition for our analysis in this decision.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,881,048 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 14, 2023 · IPR2023-00105 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any claim unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’013 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we do not find the proposals to be materially different. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Thus, although we do not find the parties’ proposals for the level of skill in the art to be materially different, for purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’013 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’013 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“understand the claim term “a support pattern, provided on the second surface” recited in all challenged independent claims to mean a “support section that is part of a wiring pattern formed on the substrate’s second surface.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119–121, 133–134). At this time, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a support pattern, provided on the second surface.” See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we need not construe this term because the parties do not identify any material issue that would turn on the construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“As discussed above in Section II.C, under the heading “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION,” the ’013 patent states that “[t]he object of the present invention is to provide a wiring substrate, a semiconductor device, and a package stack semiconductor device, all with improved reliability of connection by suppressing occurrence of inadequate electrical connection.” Ex. 1001, 3:60–64 (emphases added). The ’013 patent further states that A wiring substrate of the present invention, in order to achieve the foregoing object, includes an insulating substrate, a terminal section for wire bonding or flip-chip connection and a support pattern, provided on a surface of the other side of the surface where the terminal section is provided, and on a position corresponding to the terminal section, for improving reliability of connection of wire bonding. Therefore, this structure can suppress deformation of the insulating substrate by the support pattern, even when the terminal section is pressed in wire bonding or other connection methods. As a result, reliability of connection in wire bonding or other connection methods, can be improved than conventionally. Id. at 3:65–4:11 (emphases added). In view of these disclosures in the Specification and the express recitation “for improving wire bonding connection” in the claim, we determine that the limitation reciting “support pattern . . . for improving wire bonding connection” requires the recited “support pattern” to be capable of “improving wire bonding connection.” See GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“When a patent . . . describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.” (quoting Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007))); see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Statements that describe the invention as a whole are more likely to be found in certain sections of the specification, such as the Summary of the Invention.”).” slip op. at 43
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,731,013
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.