- Elastic N.V. / Ohio Farmers Insurance Company et al. v. Guada Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 24, 2022 · IPR2021-00875 · APJ Matthew J Mcneill · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable under § 103 over Wesemann, Wesemann and Rajaraman, Fratkina, or Fratkina and Rajaraman, as applicable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Ohio Farmers Insurance Company and Pregis LLC filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1‒7 of the ’379 patent and a motion for joinder to this proceeding in IPR2022-00217. We granted the motion for joinder and joined Ohio Farmers Insurance Company and Pregis LLC as Petitioners in this proceeding. See IPR2022-00217, Paper 9.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioners state a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had a “bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering and at least one year of work on information retrieval and database searching, or the equivalent experience and education.” Pet. 9. Dr. Smyth’s testimony supports Petitioners’ position. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 28‒30. Patent Owner does not explicitly refute these assertions. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioners’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it aligns with the technology of the ’379 patent and the descriptions of the art in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioners propose construing five claim terms. Pet. 13‒16. First, Petitioners propose construing “node” to mean “a specific choice or option in a hierarchy.” Id. at 13. Second, Petitioners propose construing “vertex” to mean “a specific choice or option in a hierarchy that can be represented in a graph.” Id. at 13‒14. Third, Petitioners propose construing “keyword” to mean “one or more words or pieces of information, such as a specific data pattern, that is associated with at least one node or vertex.” Id. at 14‒15. Fourth, Petitioners propose construing “jumping”3 to mean “a direct traversal from one node or vertex to another node or vertex that is not directly connected to it (i.e., without traversal through any intervening nodes or vertices or to a node or vertex whose only least common ancestor with that node or vertex is the root node or vertex).” Id. at 15. Petitioners assert that the Applicant defined “jumping” in this manner during prosecution of 3 Independent claim 1 recites “jumping to the at least one node” and independent claim 7 recites “jumping to the vertex.” Ex. 1001, 22:57, 24:11. the ’379 patent. Id. at 15. Fifth, Petitioners propose construing “verbal description” to mean “a set of words relating to the subject matter whether presented audibly or in written form.” Id. at 15‒16. Patent Owner did not explicitly propose construing any claim terms in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioners’ proposed construction of the term “jumping”: “a direct traversal from one node or vertex to another node or vertex that is not directly connected to it (i.e., without traversal through any intervening nodes or vertices or to a node or vertex whose only least common ancestor with that node or vertex is the root node or vertex).” Inst. Dec. 8. We determined that no other terms required explicit construction. Id. The parties do not dispute the constructions of these terms in their briefing. See PO Resp. 6; Reply 11–12. Upon considering the complete record, we see no reason to deviate from our preliminary determination for this Final Written Decision and adopt Petitioner’s construction of the term “jumping.” For the purposes of this Final Written Decision, no other terms require explicit construction. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 9
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“As admitted by Patent Owner, this argument was not raised in the Patent Owner Response. Tr. 16:17–20, 23:11‒14. Instead, this argument was raised for first time at the hearing, during which Petitioners timely objected. Tr. 27:17–28:5. Because Patent Owner did not raise this argument timely and in a substantive brief, this argument is deemed waived. See Paper 10 (Scheduling Order), 8 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”); see also See Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharm. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,231,379 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,231,379 - PTAB · May 24, 2022 · IPR2022-00669 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 under all six §103 grounds and granted T-Mobile’s motion to join IPR2021-01552.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information 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.” As elaborated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, and we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims and grounds raised in the Petition. We also grant the Joinder Motion.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Because the Petition challenges the same claims on the same grounds using the same prior art, Kyocera factor (2) favors joinder. See Kyocera, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4. Indeed, the Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing proceeding.” Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Company, IPR2016-00962, Paper 12 at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016).” slip op. at 34
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Either proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 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). Petitioner states, “[n]o claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner states that it “considered the plain and ordinary meaning of each term of the ’196 patent as it would have been understood by one skilled in the art as of October 23, 2001.” Prelim. Resp. 3–4. For purposes of this Decision, we do not construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,918,196 - Vudu, LLC v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01688 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are unpatentable over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. does it present its own definition. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” “SegmentBase,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its briefing. We need not construe any claim term to resolve any issues before us, and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
“not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely because paragraph 253 uses the term “[h]ereinafter” before it discloses “two simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited 8 Ex. 2005 is Application No. 16/168,933 (“the ’933 application”). in limitations [38.6], [40.6], and [46.6]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicates a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. MTA 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 38, 40, and 46 do not find sufficient written description support in the ’644 application nor in the ’933 application, whether considered individually or collectively, and thus, these claims contain new matter.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“rationale for combining DIS 23009-1 with M20060, Petitioner persuasively contends that: A POSA would have been motivated to add the additional “metadata” described in M20060 to the MPDs described in the DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 references in order to enable the client to choose the most suitable version of media content among alternative versions of media content. For example, M20060 describes that the additional metadata (e.g., the extended accessibility element and the usedWith, equivalentTo, bitDepth, minBitDepth, and maxBitDepth attributes) helps “both users and clients to select appropriate representations” by, for example, “1) supporting accessibility, 2) describing relationships of representations, and 3) describing media’s bit depth.” Moreover, a POSA would have had an expectation of success in modifying the MPDs in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 to include the additional metadata described below because it simply would have been a matter of adding additional metadata to the MPD XML schemas described in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1. Id. (citing Ex. 1094 ¶ 33; Ex. 1097 § 1, 1). Dr. Bestavros persuasively explains that “M20060 expressly references the DIS 23001-6 reference and proposes specific modifications to the MPEG DASH metadata included in the MPD XML schema.” Ex. 1094 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1097 § 1, 1 (introduction of M20060); Ex. 1097, 7 (references cited by M20060)).” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 10,270,830 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,270,830 - Vudu, Inc. v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01689 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 11, 25, 27, and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend proposing claims 31–35 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor does it present its own definition in any of its briefing. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the Specification of the ’414 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in any of its briefing. 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“The newly-cited portion in paragraph 232 does not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited in limitations [31.11], [32.12], and [35.7]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicate a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 31, 32, and 35 do not have sufficient written description support in the ’644 application and the ’092 application, either individually or collectively, and as such, contain new matter.” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“are not entitled to a priority date earlier than March 16, 2012 (the filing date of PCT ’922), because the disclosure of KR10-2011-0023271 does not support at least the limitations of: “the adaptation set includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the representations for that adaptation set,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11, and the “SegmentTemplate” recited in independent claims 25. Patent Owner has not asserted, after institution, that the challenged claims are entitled to an earlier date. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (indicating that patent owner bears a burden of production in arguing that the asserted references are not prior art based on entitlement to an earlier priority date). As such and for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has persuasively demonstrated that DIS 23001-6, DIS 23009-1, and 3GPP TS 26.247 qualify as prior art to the challenged claims, because Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the references were publicly accessible prior to the applicable priority date of March 16, 2012.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,313,414 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,313,414 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Micropairing Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 12, 2022 · IPR2021-01557 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 6, and 10–23 were unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“On this record, we determine that we need not address whether the Unnamed RPIs were improperly excluded because, “even if [they] were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18. Like in SharkNinja, the Unnamed RPIs here are currently members of Unified and some of them may have been accused of infringement of the ’816 patent, but there is no allegation or evidence that any of those members are barred or estopped from this proceeding.8 And although Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner’s failure to identify members funding its activities as real-parties-in-interest raises estoppel issues,” the only estoppel issue that Patent Owner identifies is estoppel that could potentially arise under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) in the future. Prelim. Sur-reply 1-2. However, because we deny institution of inter partes review on the merits (see infra § III.F), there is no estoppel triggered under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) by our decision. In the present proceeding, there is no allegation that Petitioner’s exclusion of the Unnamed RPIs should result in termination of the proceeding or denial of institution of review for any reason other than for the alleged failure to comply with the Board’s rules requiring the identification of RPIs. Additionally, there is no allegation or evidence that any of the Unnamed RPIs is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that Petitioner purposefully omitted any of the Unnamed RPIs to gain some advantage. We” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyNot reached
“On this record, we determine that we need not address whether the Unnamed RPIs were improperly excluded because, “even if [they] were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18. Like in SharkNinja, the Unnamed RPIs here are currently members of Unified and some of them may have been accused of infringement of the ’816 patent, but there is no allegation or evidence that any of those members are barred or estopped from this proceeding.8 And although Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner’s failure to identify members funding its activities as real-parties-in-interest raises estoppel issues,” the only estoppel issue that Patent Owner identifies is estoppel that could potentially arise under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) in the future. Prelim. Sur-reply 1-2. However, because we deny institution of inter partes review on the merits (see infra § III.F), there is no estoppel triggered under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) by our decision. In the present proceeding, there is no allegation that Petitioner’s exclusion of the Unnamed RPIs should result in termination of the proceeding or denial of institution of review for any reason other than for the alleged failure to comply with the Board’s rules requiring the identification of RPIs. Additionally, there is no allegation or evidence that any of the Unnamed RPIs is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that Petitioner purposefully omitted any of the Unnamed RPIs to gain some advantage. We” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in in-vehicle infotainment systems.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 25–28). Patent Owner does not propose any particular skill level in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. We determine, on the current record, that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’816 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). We adopt that level in deciding whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). The claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, we take into account the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–17. Petitioner identifies certain claim terms that were construed in pending district court litigation. Pet. 12–13 (listing constructions for “application,” “audio source,” “multi-processor system,” and “download a copy of a second/fourth software application”). Patent Owner does not address any of these constructions. See Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing 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 Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,953,816 - Facebook, Inc. / Whatsapp Inc. et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 16, 2019 · IPR2017-01667 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 6–8, 10–35, 38, and 39 are unpatentable; claims 4 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeOther
“Response in each case. IPR2017-01667, Paper 17 (“1667 PO Resp.”); IPR2017-01668, Paper 16 (“1668 PO Resp.”). Petitioner4 then filed Replies. IPR2017-01667, Paper 24 (“1667 Reply”); IPR2017-01668, Paper 22 (“1668 Reply”). Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Exclude as Paper 21 in each case (“Mot. Excl.”), and Petitioner filed an Opposition as Paper 24 in each case (“Opp’n”). We held a consolidated oral argument in both proceedings, as well as in related proceeding IPR2017-01428, on August 30, 2018. A transcript of the oral hearing (“Tr.”) has been entered into the record of IPR2017-01667 as Paper 31 and into the record of IPR2017-01668 as Paper 29.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“01668, Paper 6 (“1668 Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314 as to all challenged claims. IPR2017-01667, Paper 8 (“1667 Dec. on Inst.”); IPR2017-01668, Paper 8 (“1668 Dec. on Inst.”). During the pendency of the proceedings, Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and LG Electronics, Inc. filed a petition and motion for joinder requesting to join IPR2017-01667, which we granted. IPR2017-01667, Paper 12. Similarly, Apple Inc. filed petitions and motions for joinder requesting to join IPR2017-01667 and IPR2017-01668, which we also granted. IPR2017- 01667, Paper 29; IPR2017-01668, Paper 27.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“1. Instant Voice Message Independent challenged claims 3, 27, and 38 recite the term “instant voice message.” In particular, claim 3 recites a messaging system that “receives an instant voice message” from one of a plurality of instant voice the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42). message client systems, “wherein the instant voice message includes an object field including a digitized audio file.” Claims 27 and 38 recite a client platform system for “generating an instant voice message and a messaging system for transmitting the instant voice message.” Claim 27 further requires an “instant voice messaging application” that “includes a document handler system for attaching one or more files to the instant voice message.” Certain of the challenged dependent claims recite additional limitations concerning, for example, additional fields included in the instant voice message (claims 4–8), storage, deletion, or retrieval of instant voice messages (claims 10, 14, 17, 28, 31), the generation of the instant voice messages (claims 13, 18, 32), encryption/decryption of instant voice messages (claims 19, 33), compression/decompression of instant voice messages (claims 20, 34), effects indicating receipt of instant voice messages (claims 23, 35), and display of instant voice messages (claim 30). Our Institution Decision in IPR2017-01667 noted Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the “instant voice message” centered on the scope of the term. 1667 Dec. on Inst. 18, 22–23. Patent Owner had argued an implied construction in which “instant voice message” encompasses only the voice message. Id. at 19, 23. The parties were invited to brief the claim construction during trial. Id. at 19–20, 23. In its Response in IPR2017-01667, Patent Owner proposed that an “instant voice message” is “an audio file recording voice data.” 1667 PO Resp. 11–13, 15. In particular, Patent Owner relied on the specification’s use of “i.e.” to indicate lexicography in equating the “instant voice message”” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 8,724,622 mixedClaim constructioncites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,724,622 - Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-00826 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–8 unpatentable, and granted sanctions for Petitioner’s failure to timely update real-party-in-interest notices.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“IV. REQUEST FOR REHEARING On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with Patent Owner, the party challenging the Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“With respect to Southern Company Gas, Petitioner’s assertion ignores the fact that Southern Company Gas did not result merely from a name change, but rather also from a merger with AMS Corp. that occurred before the name change. See Paper 34, 3. In the related IPR, the Board specifically found that AGLR is a real party in interest, and it follows that the merged entity is also a real party in interest. Atlanta Gas, slip op. at 13 (PTAB Jan. 6, 2015) (Paper 88). The merger with AMS Corp. has meaningful effects that impose an obligation on Petitioner to apprise the Board that Southern Gas Company is a real party in interest. Petitioner’s failure to file timely the updated mandatory notice is especially significant in light of the central nature that the issue of AGLR’s status as a real party in interest played in the related IPR. See Atlanta Gas, Paper 87, 46:6–9 (“The problem that we have, and you will remember, we had to fight like tooth and nail to get these documents. At every turn there was an objection to producing documents related to the real party in interest issue or the privity issue.” (statement by Patent Owner at oral hearing in the related IPR)). With respect to The Southern Company, we do not credit Petitioner’s argument that The Southern Company is not a real party in interest in light of Petitioner’s explicit notification to the contrary. Petitioner cannot have it both ways, identifying The Southern Company as a real party in interest (even “out of an abundance of caution”) to ensure compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 312(b), while simultaneously maintaining that it is not a real party in interest to evade the obligations of 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3). In light of these various considerations, we conclude that Petitioner has performed conduct that warrants a sanction.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“be to expunge the Decision and the request for rehearing, dismiss the Petition with prejudice, and order [Petitioner] to pay compensatory expenses and attorney fees to [Patent Owner].” Mot. 5. We disagree that this proposed sanction is proportionate to the harm suffered by Patent Owner. In particular, as Petitioner contends, the harm suffered by Patent Owner is limited because “the estoppel provisions apply to the petitioner and ‘the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner.’” Opp. 6 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1)) (emphasis by Petitioner). There is no requirement that a petitioner identify all of its privies in a petition, and Patent Owner’s ability to address whether The Southern Company was a privy that would give rise to estoppel was not impacted by Petitioner’s original failure to file an updated mandatory notice. Furthermore, “[a] sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.11(d)(4) (emphasis added). We have considered, but are not persuaded by, Patent Owner’s argument that “[a]ny remedy short of termination with prejudice would encourage future petitioners to try to suppress the identification of real parties-in-interest.” Mot. 6. A more limited sanction will have sufficient deterrent effect. We determine that an appropriate sanction, proportionate to the harm suffered by Patent Owner, is to award costs and fees incurred in association with this proceeding from the time after issuance of the Final Written Decision until the date of this Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(b)(6).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“Although we agree with Patent Owner in the abstract that the “ordinary and customary meaning” standard applied to expired patents requires that evidence be viewed through the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner stretches that principle too far. See id. at 9–10. “[A] claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim language itself.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 382 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Patent Owner asks us to deviate far from this cardinal principle by incorporating features of the Fisher S254 regulator that are not recited in the claims themselves, under circumstances in which the Fisher S254 regulator is not explicitly identified as such anywhere in the specification of the ’029 patent. “Reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from reading limitations of the specification into a claim, to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.” In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969). This is particularly the case when the standard we are obliged to apply does not afford Patent Owner a presumption of validity of the patent’s claims. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any aspect of Patent Owner’s claim-construction arguments. Nor are we persuaded that Patent Owner’s evidence in support of those arguments was inadequately considered.” slip op. at 16
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 5,810,029 - Motivepower, Inc. v. Cutsforth, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2016 · IPR2013-00274 · APJ Trenton A Ward · IPR · Remand
Claims 1–4, 6–7, and 9–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Bissett, Kartman, and Ohmstedt; claims 5 and 8 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandFwd mixedOther
“On January 22, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a decision vacating and remanding the case to the Board. Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., 636 F. App’x 575, 578 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (nonprecedential) (entered herein as Paper 38). The Federal Circuit held “that the Board’s Final Written Decision does not provide enough explanation to support its finding of obviousness.” Id. “When the Board determines that modifications and combinations of the prior art render a claimed invention obvious, the Board must fully explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would find such changes obvious.” Id. at 578–79. As a result, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s determinations that claims 1–24 of the ’018 patent were not patentable and remanded the case to the Board “for proceedings appropriate to the administrative process.” Id. at 579 (citing In re Sang-Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). On February 29, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a formal mandate, returning the case to the Board. Paper 39.” slip op. at 3
- Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, grantedGranted
“Patent Owner’s request to submit additional briefing in light of the remand and to discuss the Petitioner’s opposition to such additional briefing. Paper 37, 2. During the conference, Patent Owner indicated that it was seeking additional briefing because the “record is without adequate briefing as to whether one of skill would have made the changes that are contemplated as they relate to a spring that was at issue and relating to claim 5.” Ex. 2064, Transcript of March 29, 2016 conference call, 6:15–18. Patent Owner stated that “a remand typically . . . deserves briefing on the point of the remand to make sure the record is full and there could be a fulsome review of the issues that are thought by the Appellate Court to . . . need[] further review.” Id. at 7:20–25. Patent Owner further argued that additional briefing was needed because the record was “devoid of arguments . . . from either side on this issue”; thus, Patent Owner requested “briefing without evidentiary submission by either party, a page limited briefing of simultaneous submission.” Id. at 8:9–11, 11:12–14.4 We granted Patent Owner’s request to file additional briefing. Paper 37, 3. More particularly, we authorized additional briefing limited to the issue raised by Patent Owner, namely, the design choice issue with respect to claim 5 of the ’018 patent. Id. In accordance with the Board’s Order, both Petitioner and Patent Owner filed their briefs on April 15, 2016. See Paper 40 (“Petitioner Remand Br.”) and Paper 41 (“PO Remand Br.”). Subsequently, Patent Owner requested authorization to file a Reply Brief to address arguments presented in Petitioner’s Remand Brief. The Board granted the request and authorized both parties to file a reply brief. Accordingly, the parties filed reply briefs on April 29, 2016. See Paper 42 (“PO Remand Reply”) and Paper 43 (“Pet. Remand Reply”).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“the “specification’s requirement that the mounting block must be fixed to a location.” PO Resp. 8. In support of this argument, Patent Owner relies on Figure 15B of the ’018 patent as depicting that lower mounting block 16, i.e., the “mounting block,” is fixed in place to mount base 41 via bolts 43. Id. at 910. Patent Owner further points to descriptions of various embodiments of the attachment of the “mounting block” to a base or to a location. Id. We determine that neither Figure 15B nor the statements in the specification identified by Patent Owner require the non-moveable, or “fixed,” aspect. Figure 15B does not show that the attachment excludes any ability to adjust the block. Indeed, the bottom surface of the mount is not depicted, leaving us to speculate concerning the shape of mount holes 96, because a round hole would suggest there is no adjustability, while a slotted or elongated hole would suggest adjustability. But see Ex. 1001, Fig. 9 (not cited by Petitioner, but confirming that elongated holes 96 are contemplated). The lack of description and depiction of the shape of the holes compels us to reject Patent Owner’s characterization of Figure 15B as supporting a “fixed” or non-moveable attachment. Furthermore, as for the descriptions of how the mount is attached, the specification uses the word “secure” and describes various embodiments of the attachment, none of which requires non-movability of the mount after the brush holder component is installed. See Ex. 1001, 12:35–36 (bolts and washers “secure the lower mount block 16 to a mount base” (emphasis added)), 14:5658 (“mount holes 96 may include threading or other elements that allow for attachment to a mount base”), 16:2528 (“in other embodiments, a welded, keyed, pinned or other attachment scheme may be used to secure the lower mount block 16 to a mount base” (emphasis added)). In fact, the specification makes a point of not limiting the attachment of the mount to any particular method, fixed or not fixed. See id. at 12:37–41 (“or other attachment scheme may be used to secure the lower mount block 16 to a mount base near a moving conductive surface or in position to move relative to a conductive surface”). Nor does the language of the claim recite any method of attachment that limits the mounting block to something that cannot be adjusted, shifted, re-positioned, or otherwise moved, after attachment to the base.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelOther
“The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,990,018 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,990,018 - Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 17, 2016 · IPR2014-01412 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10–16, 18–21, 24–28, and 32 are unpatentable, principally because the cited references anticipate or render them obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“On July 10, 2015, we joined IPR2015-01077 to this proceeding and instituted trial on the following grounds: Claims 11 and 25 of the ’557 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’450 patent; Claims 11 and 25 of the ’557 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of the ’450 patent and the ’219 patent; and Claims 11 and 25 of the ’557 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of the ’450 patent and Bungum.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“have its plain and ordinary meaning as “a communications path in a communications network.” Dec. to Inst. 8. Patent Owner contends that we should not construe this term at all because its plain and ordinary meaning is clear. PO Resp. 6–7. Patent Owner disputes the authority of the IEEE reference we used to establish the plain and ordinary meaning, arguing that Exhibit 1017 is not a standard, but a functional requirements document generated to assist a working group and is subject to change. Id. at 7–8. However, Patent Owner does not propose a “plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. Nor does Patent Owner argue that the scope of the term would be different if we rely on other evidence of the plain and ordinary meaning. Id. Although our Decision to Institute notes that the construction of “transmission path” is not particularly material to the decision, Dec. to Inst. 7–8, it is helpful to establish a baseline definition of the meaning as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner’s assertion that the definition we applied was used by an IEEE working group supports our determination that our construction in the Decision to Institute applies the plain and ordinary meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt the construction of “transmission path” as “a communication path in a communications network.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Time-Slot In this proceeding, neither party proposed a construction for the term “time- slot,” and we did not construe it in our Decision to Institute. However, in related case IPR2015-01471, which concerns a continuation-in-part of the ’557 Patent, it became clear that a construction of the term “slot” was in dispute, and it was discussed extensively at the consolidated oral hearing. In this proceeding, Patent Owner argues that the ’450 Patent does not disclose transmitting payload data on time slots allocated by the network control terminal (NCT), because the NCT in the ’450 Patent assigns only one slot, so that a small aperture terminal (SAT) transmits data beginning on a single slot. PO Resp. 15–19. In IPR2014-01471, we construed “slot” to mean “a duration of time.” Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case 2014- 01471, slip op. at 7 (PTAB, March 17, 2015) (Paper 33, Final Written Decision). We address the implications of this issue in our analysis of Representative Claim A and the ’450 patent.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As discussed above, there is evidence that MPEG2 could have been used to transmit video via satellite. As previously discussed, Petitioner has cited credible evidence that satellites transport MPEG2 packets. Reply 14. The claims are drawn to a three channel arrangement in which one channel is used to transmit data from the central controller to the station and two channels are used to transmit data from the station to the central controller. As discussed above, that arrangement is disclosed in the ’450 patent. The further limitation in claims 11 and 25 that the first path is a broadcast channel carrying MPEG2 data is a restriction to a field where Petitioner has demonstrated it was known to use such a format. Thus, Petitioner has produced persuasive evidence that combining the use of known MPEG2 transport packets with a managed access satellite communication system, such as that disclosed in the ’450 patent, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Therefore, we conclude that Patent Owner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 11 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’450 patent.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 5,963,557 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 5,963,557 - ZTE Corporation / ZTE (USA) Inc. et al. v. Ipr Licensing, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 14, 2015 · IPR2014-00525 · APJ Beverly M Bunting · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 14–16, 19–29, 36–38, and 41–44 are unpatentable as obvious over Jawanda, the GPRS Standards, and the IEEE 802.11 Standard.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues persuasively that the language of claim 1 does not dictate which entity actually chooses or assigns the physical channels, and instead recites what happens in the absence of physical channels. Reply 3. As noted by Petitioner, “[b]y reciting the past participle ‘assigned,’ claim 1 clearly indicates that the channels have already been assigned, and it does not matter whether the base station or the subscriber unit assigned them.” Id. Based on the context of claim 1, Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation, particularly the language suggesting that the subscriber unit selects the assigned channels as well as the language suggesting that the assigned channels are selected from a subset of available channels, is not the broadest reasonable interpretation. We must be careful not to read limitations from a particular embodiment appearing in the specification into the claim, if the claim language is broader than that embodiment. Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Patent Owner’s reliance on the particular embodiment described in Figure 6 does not persuade us to read into the claim term “assigned physical channels” the requirement that the subscriber unit selects the assigned channels. See Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1334, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (as a general rule, patent claims are not limited to the preferred embodiment).4 Nor are we persuaded by the passage in the Specification cited by Patent Owner, to read a requirement into the claim that the assigned channels are selected from a subset of available channels. “[D]isavowal requires that ‘the specification [or prosecution history] make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature.’” GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Applying that standard in this case, we are not persuaded that the Specification makes clear that claim 1 is limited to only the subscriber unit assigning the physical channels from a subset of channels. Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we construe, in light of the Specification, the claim term “assigned physical channels” as “physical channels made available for use by the subscriber unit.”” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionTerm construed petitioner constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. maintain a communication session with the cellular wireless network in an absence of the plurality of assigned physical channels Claim 1 includes the limitation “maintain a communication session with the cellular wireless network in an absence of the plurality of assigned physical channels.” Ex. 1001, 11:12–14. Claim 23 includes a similar limitation. Id. at 12:41–43. In its Petition, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction from the related district court proceeding, i.e., maintain a logical connection with the cellular wireless network when none of the plurality of physical channels are in use by the subscriber unit, should be adopted. Pet. 13–15. Patent Owner agrees. PO Resp. 14–16. Upon considering the district court’s claim construction order, we determine that it is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of those terms in light of the ’244 patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt the district court’s construction set forth above. See Ex. 2009 at 12–14.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“disclose that the subscriber unit selects the assigned channels that will be available for use. Id. We credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Stark, as consistent with the understanding that the GPRS standards in existence at the time of the invention required that the network, not the subscriber unit, select the channels for use. Id. (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 68). Nonetheless, having construed the claim term “plurality of assigned physical channels” to mean “plurality of physical channels made available for use by the subscriber unit,” Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does not limit them to a narrow type of ‘assigned physical channel’ that must be assigned by a particular entity or require selection of a subset.” Reply 9. Moreover, we agree that Claim 1 does not specify which entity, e.g. the subscriber unit or the network, assigns (selects) the physical channels for use, and nothing in the claim language precludes the network from assigning the physical channels. Indeed, the limitation in question only requires that the physical channel has been assigned, i.e., made available for use by the subscriber unit. As such, Patent Owner’s arguments directed specifically to the subscriber unit itself making the selection of the physical channels, are not persuasive because this contention is not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 1. Likewise, Patent Owner’s further argument, “when the subscriber unit ‘selects’ channels for use, the selected channels are a subset of a larger group of channels,” is not persuasive because this contention is not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 1. PO Resp. 26. Nothing in the language of claim 1 requires that the channels be selected from a subset of larger group of channels. For the above reasons, Petitioner has established persuasively that Jawanda discloses the claim element of “assigned physical channels.”” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Whether a document constitutes a printed publication is a question of law based upon the underlying facts of each particular case. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Kyocera, 545 F.3d at 1350. Patent Owner has not provided credible evidence demonstrating adequately that the draft standards were not “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it . . . .” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Wyer, 655 F.2d at 226). Here, we credit Dr. Bims’ testimony that the GPRS Standards were available to an interested member of the public as of the date listed on the top of the specification. Ex. 1002 ¶ 121. Based on the complete record, we see no reason to revisit our determination that the GPRS Standards are a prior art printed publication, and are available as prior art. Dec. 14–17.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 8,380,244 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,380,244
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.