• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Corteva Agriscience LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01014 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not show claims 1–8 unpatentable because they are entitled to the 2004 priority date, making Barbour unavailable as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “For a claim to a biological material, the enablement requirement of § 112, first paragraph, does not require such assured access to a microorganism deposit as of the filing date; what is required is assurance of access (to the microorganism culture by the public upon issuance of a patent on the application) prior to or during the pendency of the application, so that, upon issuance of a U. S. patent on the application, the public will, in fact, receive something in return for the patent grant. Feldman, 517 F.2d at 1355. Patent Owner has persuaded us that such exception not only applies to a deposit, but also extends to a biological material known and readily available. See 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081. In this case, it is undisputed that TC1507 germplasm was known and readily available to the public by Barbour’s publication date in 2006 (Pet. 49–53), years before the 2014 issuance date of the ’378 patent (Ex. 1001, code 45). Thus, based on the record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the 2004 application satisfies the enablement requirement as of its application date in 2004. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081). As a result, the challenged claims are entitled to the 2004 priority date and, thus, Barbour does not qualify as prior art.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “In this case, it is undisputed that TC1507 germplasm was known and readily available to the public by Barbour’s publication date in 2006 (Pet. 49–53), years before the 2014 issuance date of the ’378 patent (Ex. 1001, code 45). Thus, based on the record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the 2004 application satisfies the enablement requirement as of its application date in 2004. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081). As a result, the challenged claims are entitled to the 2004 priority date and, thus, Barbour does not qualify as prior art. Because all of Petitioner’s challenges rely on Barbour (Pet. 6), all those challenges fail.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “In this case, it is undisputed that TC1507 germplasm was known and readily available to the public by Barbour’s publication date in 2006 (Pet. 49–53), years before the 2014 issuance date of the ’378 patent (Ex. 1001, code 45). Thus, based on the record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the 2004 application satisfies the enablement requirement as of its application date in 2004. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081). As a result, the challenged claims are entitled to the 2004 priority date and, thus, Barbour does not qualify as prior art. Because all of Petitioner’s challenges rely on Barbour (Pet. 6), all those challenges fail.” slip op. at 15

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

    “would understand that the term “‘flanked by’ permits overlap between the expression cassette and the DNA sequence it is flanked by.” Pet. 24–26. Patent Owner does not propose any claim construction. PO Resp. 6–7. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any claim term.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,901,378 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,901,378
• Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00794 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6–8 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art combinations did not establish the claimed messaging through the server system.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Tr. 78:6–10. Patent Owner responded “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination.” Tr. 78:13–14. We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems.” See Inst. Dec. 10. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ289 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. media player Patent Owner contends that, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’289 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 92–93). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player.’” Pet. Reply 1. Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software. Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 24–27)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device.” Pet. Reply 2 (alteration in original). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Muthukumarasamy “controls delivery of selected media content and selects and controls the media devices that deliver the selected media content according to a media type of the selected media content.” Because Muthukumarasamy teaches that the media device displays media content from various disparate sources depending on the media type and media source, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood the media device loads an appropriate media player depending on the media type and source. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 47; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67). Petitioner, however, proffers insufficient evidence or argument that the content choices described in paragraph 47 of Muthukumarasamy would have led an ordinarily skilled artisan to understand a media player is obtained and loaded in the content presentation device. Rather, Dr. Bederson makes conclusory statements without providing evidence to support the assertions (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67).” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Muthukumarasamy discussed above. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more messages in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file,” and “identify a location of the particular media player.” Pet. 41–45. More specifically, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate control of internet content presented at the content presentation device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward.” Pet. 65. However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the content presentation device” (Pet. Reply 22), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required messages being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward teaches “receiving, in a server system, one or more messages from a personal computing device . . . wherein the one or more messages, . . . identify a particular media player for playing content from the file wherein the media player is a computer application operable to present content and control presentation of the content,” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 6. Additionally, because claim 2 depends from claim 1 and claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that the subject matter of claims 2, 7, and 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 8,904,289 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,904,289
• Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00795 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 5–9 were not shown unpatentable over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward because the claimed signals identifying a media player were not shown to pass through the asserted server system.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ251 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “1. Media player Patent Owner contends, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’251 Patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 81–92, 95)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 23–26)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (see Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)))).” slip op. at 13

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

    “We determine that Hayward does not cure the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy discussed supra. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more signals in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing the video content” (Pet. 38–41). More specifically, Petitioner contends “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward” (Pet. 15, 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 60, 102)). However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device . . .” (Pet. Reply 22 (emphasis omitted)), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required signals being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251
• Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00793 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ528 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “‘media player’ in the ’528 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 83–91, 94)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 21–24)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (see Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)))).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded. Even if the zHub and the zNode would be used to control the volume on the TV on which the streamed content is displayed, this device cooperation does not show the particular messaging recited in the claim. More specifically, even under Petitioner’s scenario that the “Volume Up” command flows from the IED (“personal computing device”) through the zHub/zNode (“server system”) to the TV (“content presentation device”), this command does not “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file.” Petitioner has not shown any messages in Muthukumarasamy that “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file” and flow from the IED through the zHub/zNode to the content presentation device. Thus, Petitioner’s assertions about devices working together fall short of proving by preponderant evidence that Muthukumarasamy discloses the particular messaging contents and path recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,782,528 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,782,528
• Platinum Optics Technology Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 3, 2022 · IPR2021-00631 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–12, 14, 16–21, and 23 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed hydrogenated silicon properties.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Supported by Mr. Willey’s testimony, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in physics, or in a related science or engineering field, along with at least 5 years of experience in optical coating design and the manufacturing of optical filters, including various deposition techniques.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66–68). According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education (e.g., a Master’s degree with exposure to coating design and manufacturing) may substitute for some industrial experience in optical thin film design, and more industrial experience can substitute for a different educational background. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 66). Patent Owner neither directly addresses Petitioner’s proposal nor provides its own proposal. See Tr. 35:15–18 (Patent Owner confirming for the record that it has not proposed a different level of ordinary skill than Petitioner’s proposal). Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with the prior art presented. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We accordingly adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the statements Dr. Clemens made under oath in his Declaration, we find that he qualifies as a person having at least ordinary skill in the art according to our adopted definition. The questions Petitioner raises about Dr. Clemens’s qualifications were insufficiently explored on cross-examination to impeach that testimony. With respect to Petitioner’s further complaint that Dr. Clemens “did not review all the evidence in rendering his opinions, did not select the materials he reviewed, and did no independent research on the question of enablement,” we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner cites no authority for the propositions that expert witnesses must review all exhibits or perform independent research. Sur-reply 27. Indeed, we do not find it particularly unusual for an expert witness to focus his analysis and opinions on specific issues identified by counsel, and Dr. Clemens properly discloses the underlying facts and data upon which his opinions are based. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). We thus accord due weight to Dr. Clemens’s testimony.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner contends that “the claims do not need an express construction to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding” but nevertheless “provides its proposed interpretations of two terms [namely, ‘center wavelength’ and ‘passband’] to clarify how Petitioner is applying the prior art to the claims.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not directly address Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these terms, and appears generally to treat the terms in a manner consistent with Petitioner’s proposals. We conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim term. See 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 16

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

    “One difficulty with Petitioner’s position is that it treats the refractive index and extinction coefficient as independent variables in its argument. But the prior art is clear that the adjusting the hydrogen content of Si:H to achieve a desired extinction coefficient necessarily affects the refractive index—and, as we discuss above, that such adjustments do so in a direction counterproductive to the combination of parameters the inventors sought. And we agree with Patent Owner that the refractive index and extinction coefficient “are not parameters subject to simple adjustment, but properties resulting from the parameters of the fabrication process.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 121–122; Ex. 1016, Figs. 2–3). At the Oral Hearing, Petitioner conceded that Patent Owner’s characterization is accurate when considering the hydrogenated silicon material. See Tr. 65:7– 12. When Petitioner refers to the refractive index and extinction coefficient as result-effective variables, Petitioner means that those parameters are variables that can affect the properties of the claimed optical filter. See id. at 64:6–65:12. As we note above, Petitioner’s argument thus presumes that the refractive index and extinction coefficient can be independently adjusted to achieve desired filter properties—but the asserted prior art teaches against such independence because the known method of adjusting the hydrogen content of Si:H not only affects both the refractive index and extinction coefficient, but does so in a manner counterproductive to the inventors’ objective.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,354,369 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,354,369
• DISH Network L.L.C. / DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · IPR2020-01276 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 29 not unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “After institution, neither party put forth arguments related to the level of ordinary skill. We discern no reason to change the level of ordinary skill in the art applied in this Final Written Decision. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had either (1) a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, as well as three to four years of experience in implementing protocols and/or equipment for streaming multimedia data; or (2) a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as two years of experience in implementing protocols and/or equipment for streaming multimedia data. We are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’796 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “independent claims 1, 15, 20, and 27 are limiting. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. Petitioner does not take an express position on whether the preambles of the challenged claims are limiting. See Pet. 21 (stating that Geagan teaches the preamble “to the extent it is limiting”). Patent Owner supports our preliminary determination that the preambles are limiting. PO Resp. 37–41. Given this posture, we discern no reason to change our initial determination that the preambles are limiting. Thus, even though the disposition of this case does not turn on any particular limitation in the preamble, we maintain our determination that the preambles of claims 1, 15, 20, and 27 are limiting to the extent they color our analysis of Petitioner’s rationale for combining various prior art references.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We determine that no terms require explicit construction.2 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 10

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

    “Petitioner attempts to decouple these central control aspects from the functionality of sliding windows. In particular, Petitioner argues that “[t]he majority of the functionality for implementing the sliding window buffers is found in Vishlitzky’s stream servers themselves” and that Patent Owner has not established “that the controller servers of Vishlitzky exercise control over the playout history, the buffers, or sliding window functionality of Vishlitzky’s stream servers.” Pet. Reply 8–9. Yet Petitioner expressly relies on Vishlitzky’s admission control program, which runs on controller servers 28, 29, to teach the “determining” step of claim 1. Pet. 35–36, 40–41; Pet. Reply 21–22. Petitioner has not explained how the admission control program’s centralized function of choosing an appropriate stream server to service a request (see Ex. 1010, 7:62–8:3) would be implemented in the stream servers themselves. In addition, Petitioner’s analogy between Vishlitzky’s controller servers and the memory controllers used with Geagan’s proxy (Pet. 63; Pet. Reply 9) does not detail how and whether Petitioner proposes to modify Vishlitzky’s centralized controller functions such that they might be compatible with “the distributed nature of Geagan’s proxy approach,” as Petitioner characterizes it. Pet. Reply 10. At the oral hearing, Petitioner also suggested that a controller within a single proxy from Geagan could allocate incoming requests to multiple of Vishlitzky’s stream servers within that same proxy. Tr. 55:1–57:21; see also PO Sur-reply 23–24 (discussing this potential argument). In other words, Petitioner seemed to suggest that multiple stream servers from Vishlitzky’s stream server architecture in Figure 16, along with controller servers from Figure 2, could be replicated in each of Geagan’s proxies. Yet Petitioner disavows such a mapping in its Reply: “[T]he Petition does not propose that a POSITA would have bodily incorporated the entirety of Vishlitzky’s hardware control structure when implementing Geagan’s system using Vishlitzky’s ‘sliding window’ to store cached streaming content.” Pet. Reply 6. Nor was this the combination described in the Petition. Instead, Petitioner proposed “to implement the buffer of Geagan as a ‘pre-configured playout history (PH) buffer’ . . . because Vishlitzky teaches that it is advantageous to pre-configure a playout buffer.” Pet. 34; see also id. at 62–63 (“[A] POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing details of the ATM-based stream server of Vishlitzky in Geagan’s proxy . . . .”). Petitioner further characterizes this as “[t]he buffer of Geagan’s proxy, as implemented as a pre-configured PH buffer per Vishlitzky.” Pet. 39. And, importantly, Petitioner cites the creation of another proxy device in Geagan for teaching the recited “non pre-configured PH buffer”: “Geagan in view of Vishlitzky discloses ‘servicing the first request from a non pre-configured PH buffer,’ such as by live-streaming content using a buffer at the proxy device that is created at the time of the request for an unpopular live stream.” Pet. 42 (emphasis added). Finally, even if Petitioner’s papers had proposed a combination where Vishlitzky’s entire stream server and controller architecture is incorporated in each of Geagan’s proxies, Petitioner has failed to articulate reasons with some rational underpinning why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have made this combination. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. At the very least, Petitioner has not explained where Vishlitzky’s controller servers would be disposed in the combined system and how they” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 6,757,796 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,757,796
• DISH Network L.L.C. / DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01041 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  DISH failed to prove claim 13 unpatentable as obvious over either Durand and Bennett or Goyal and Bennett.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We regard Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill as consistent with the prior art before us (see Okajima 261 F.3d 1355). Based on the present record, including the disclosure in the ’456 Patent, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine Petitioner’s asserted level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’456 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)). As we determine the four instances of “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation introduce ambiguity, we remove these terms from our definition. Accordingly, we determine an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a Bachelor of Science in one of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, as well as three to four years of experience in implementing resource reservations for UNIX-based computing systems, or a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as two years of experience in implementing resource reservations for UNIX-based computing systems.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any terms of claim 13 (Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only 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) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review)).” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “However, Petitioner has not set forth with specificity where Bennett teaches the request uses the one or more object references. Indeed, Petitioner has not explained how these two teachings of Bennett disclose the recited limitations with sufficient specificity or how one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Durand with these teachings of Bennett to achieve the recited limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that the combination of Durand and Bennet teaches the subject matter of claim 13. Therefore, based on the entire trial record, we determine Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 13 would have been obvious over Durand and Bennet under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, as noted by Patent Owner (PO Sur-reply 11), Petitioner offers a new theory, pointing to a different system call of Goyal (Pet. Reply 19–20 (citing Ex. 1090 ¶ 144 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 352–354))). Petitioner contends this new argument is to address Patent Owner’s alleged contention that “‘quality of service’ must already be ‘provided’ at the same time when the correspondence to the ‘reference to an object’ is created (Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1090 ¶ 141)). Thus, in Dr. Negus’ Reply Declaration, Dr. Negus asserts Goyal teaches the recited “quality of service guarantees that correspond to a reference to an object” relying on the “int hsfq_move (int from, int to, .....)” which “is used to move a thread from one leaf node to another”1 (Ex. 1090 ¶ 144). Petitioner’s alleged reliance on the hsfq_move (int from, int to, …….) system call instead of the int hsfq_mknod (char *name, int parent, int weight, int flag, scheduler_id side) system call represents a change in Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions that is presented for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply (see Pet. Reply 19–20). We acknowledge that the Petition mentions a “move” function: “Additionally, system calls are used to remove, move, and administer nodes in the scheduling structure. Goyal also discloses several additional functions to manage the scheduling structure, including removing, moving, and administering nodes.” (Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 350–352 (citing Ex. 1007 § 4))). But the cited portion of Dr. Negus’ Declaration simply states that there are other system calls, including “int hsfq_parse(char *name, int hint),” “int hsfq_rmnod(int id, int 1 We note Dr. Negus refers to the system call as “int hsfq_move” (see e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 144, 352) although Goyal discloses the system call as “hsfq_move” (Ex. 1007 § 4). We consider Dr. Negus’ naming to refer to the same system call as disclosed in Goyal. mode),” and “int hsfq_admin(int node, int cmd, void *args)” and the system call “‘int hsfq_move(int from, int to, .....)’ which ‘is used to move a thread from one leaf node to another’” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 352; see also id. ¶ 144 (repeating the same information as paragraph 352)). Additionally, these teachings of Goyal are discussed in conjunction with the limitation “utilizing an application programming interface . . . to establish one or more quality of service guarantees” (id. ¶¶ 356, 359). Thus, Dr. Negus’ initial Declaration does not elaborate on the move function, and the Petition does not rely on the “hsfq_move” system call to teach the limitations of claim 13. Petitioner asserts that this argument in reply is to address “Patent Owner’s new claim construction position” (Pet. Reply 19). We disagree. As outlined above, the Petition does not identify where an object reference is “used in the request,” as specifically recited in claim 13. Petitioner’s new reply argument, therefore, attempts to fill in a gap in Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions from the Petition that was pointed out by Patent Owner. Under the circumstances here, we do not consider this a permissible reply argument (see Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”)). Thus, we do not consider Petitioner’s newly presented contentions.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 6,725,456 not shown unpatentable
  Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,725,456
• Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2016-00922 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–9, 11–19, and 21 unpatentable as obvious over Reed and Nishida because it did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “appropriate factors identified by our reviewing court and utilized by other panels to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 17–18. We agree with Petitioner that it is not necessary to consider every factor or to weigh the factors equally in order to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 2 (quoting In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Here, we may rely on Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 34) and the teachings of the prior art to evaluate Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In particular, Reed and Nishida identify the types of problems encountered in the art prior art solutions to these problems, and the sophistication of the technology. E.g., Ex. 1006, 1:13–55; Ex. 1009, 1:10– 36; see, e.g., Ex. 1007, 1:8–32, 2:12–64; Ex. 1008, 1:11–54; Ex. 1010, 145– 160; see also Ex. 1010, Preface (“The aim of this book is to combine in a single volume the fundamental principles of weft and warp knitting in such a manner that its contents are useful to readers in education, industry or commerce. It thus [fulfills] the long felt need for a comprehensive up-to-date textbook explaining this important sector of textile technology.”).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “unitary construction” means “a textile element having a unitary construction and having a first area and a second area.” Pet. 6. As Petitioner notes, this is the construction that this panel gave to the same term appearing in the substitute claims of the ’011 patent. adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., Case IPR2013- 00067, slip op. at 16–17 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2014) (Paper 60). We further note that the ’749 patent’s Specification provides that “[a]s defined for purposes of the present invention, unitary construction is intended to express a configuration wherein portions of a textile element are not joined together by seams or other connections, as depicted with textile element 40 in FIG. 8.” Ex. 1001, 6:42–46 (emphasis added); see IPR2013-00067, Ex. 1002, 6:41–46 (identical disclosure). The ’011 patent and the ’749 patent share the same Specification (apart from their claims), neither party contested our construction of this term in the appeal of our decision in the inter partes review of the claims of the ’011 patent, and Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed construction of this term in this proceeding. Therefore, in view of the express definition of the phrase “unitary construction” in the Specification of the ’749 patent, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation for this term. See Tr. 20:5–13, 37:11–17.” slip op. at 12

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

    “2. “wide-tube circular knitting machine” (Claims 9 and 19) We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “wide-tube circular knitting machine” is “a circular knitting machine forming body garment sized, tubular textile structures, including those having a diameter that ranges from 10 inches to 20 inches.” See Inst. Dec. 9–11. Neither party contests this construction. See Tr. 20:5–13, 37:11–17.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “8 Patent Owner contends that Reed is not analogous art. PO Resp. 34–36. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Reed is not from the same field of endeavor as the challenged claims and that Reed’s teachings are not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the recited methods are involved. Id. at 34–35. Because Reed is directed to the manufacture of all types of garments, including footwear (Reply 12–13; see Ex. 1006, 1:33–44), and Reed is related directly to preparation of garments layouts from a knitted textile structure (Reply 14–15; see Ex. 1006, 2:29– 35), we are persuaded that Reed is analogous art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,266,749 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• EMC Corporation v. Acqis LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2014-01462 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 54 and 56–61 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish that the cited references rendered the claimed PCI transaction communication obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “construction in the Decision on Institution. The evidence indicates that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” refers to a particular industry standard, not just any communication with an interconnected peripheral component. Industry literature and dictionaries use the proper noun “Peripheral Component Interconnect” and the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry specification for a local bus. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 1; Ex. 2002, 6–7; Ex. 2003, 7–8. The challenged claims recite “Peripheral Component Interconnect” as a proper noun and abbreviate it as “PCI,” indicating that the challenged claims use those terms consistent with the understood industry meaning. Ex. 1001, col. 43, ll. 48–49, col. 44, l. 6; see Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The written description similarly uses the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry standard, and uses the common noun “peripheral bus” to refer to a generic peripheral bus. Compare Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 31–33 (“The present invention . . . interface[s] two PCI or PCI-like buses”), with id. at col. 10, ll. 53–55 (“Additionally, the peripheral controller is coupled to a clock control logic, a configuration signal, and a peripheral bus.”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “obvious over Horst and LVDS Owner’s Manual; claims 56 and 59 would have been obvious over Horst, LVDS Owner’s Manual, and Pocrass; and claim 58 would have been obvious over Horst, LVDS Owner’s Manual, and Deters. Pet. 58–59. A claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any objective indicia of non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We have considered the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, and we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 54 and 56–61 would have been obvious over the cited references.” slip op. at 7

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Owner argues that paragraphs 10–24 and 31–37 of Exhibit 1031 should be excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial because Petitioner relies on those paragraphs to support improper arguments in the Reply. PO Mot. 8. Petitioner argues in the Reply that the TNet transaction in Horst includes PCI address bits, and that claim 54 only requires communicating two bits of a PCI bus transaction. PO Mot. 1. Patent Owner contends that both arguments exceed the scope of a proper reply, as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), and that the portions of Exhibit 1031 that Petitioner relies upon to support those arguments should be excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial. PO Mot. 2–4, 6, 7. Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. Patent Owner argues in the Response that the TNet transaction in Horst does not include PCI address bits. PO Resp. 27–29. As such, Petitioner’s argument in the Reply that the TNet transaction includes PCI address bits is responsive to an argument raised in the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (generally permitting a reply to respond to arguments raised in a response). Patent Owner also argues in the Response that claim 54 requires communicating a 32-bit PCI address. PO Resp. 8–11. As such, Petitioner’s argument in the Reply that claim 54 only requires communicating two bits of a PCI bus transaction is responsive to an argument raised in the Response. Because we are not persuaded that the identified arguments in the Reply are improper, the premise of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1031 fails. Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude paragraphs 10–24 and 31–37 of Exhibit 1031 is denied.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,041,873 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,041,873
• EMC Corporation v. Acqis LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2014-01469 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 24 and 31–33 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove obviousness over either asserted reference combination, including failure to establish Bogaerts as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” to mean “a data signal communication with an interconnected peripheral component.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner agrees with the construction in the Decision on Institution that the claim term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” means “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) industry standard bus transaction.” PO Resp. 21–22. We see no reason now to deviate from the construction in the Decision on Institution. The evidence indicates that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” refers to a particular industry standard, not just any communication with an interconnected peripheral component. Industry literature and dictionaries use the proper noun “Peripheral Component Interconnect” and the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry specification for a local bus. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 1; Ex. 2002, 6–7; Ex. 2003, 7–8. The challenged claims recite “Peripheral Component Interconnect” as a proper noun and abbreviate it as “PCI,” indicating that the challenged claims use those terms consistent with the understood industry meaning. Ex. 1001, col. 27, ll. 24–25, col. 28, ll. 35–36; see Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The written description similarly uses the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry standard, and uses the common noun “peripheral bus” to refer to a generic peripheral bus. Compare Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 31–33 (“the present invention may interface two PCI or PCI-like buses”), with id. at col. 7, ll. 4–6 (“Additionally, the host controller is coupled to a clock control logic, a configuration signal, and a peripheral bus.”) (emphasis added). Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Bruce Young, acknowledge that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)” refers to an industry standard. Ex. 1003 ¶ 58; Ex. 2006, 1, 3; Ex. 2031, 16:8–12. The evidence Petitioner identifies in support of its proposed construction is the claim construction order issued in ACQIS LLC v. Appro International, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-00148 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2011). Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1013). In that case, though, the parties did not appear to dispute that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)” refers to an industry standard. See Ex. 1013, 7 (“The parties’ primary dispute is whether the term is limited to the conventional, parallel PCI Local Bus, and, therefore excludes PCI Express bus architecture and bus transaction protocol.”). Moreover, the district court subsequently reconsidered its construction and clarified that the term “PCI bus transaction” refers to a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Ex. 1030, 8–10. Therefore, we construe the claim term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” to mean “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) industry standard bus transaction,” and we construe the claim term “PCI bus transaction” to mean “PCI industry standard bus transaction.”” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Horst outputs address and data bits of a PCI bus transaction in serial form over the TNet links. Pet. 31–34. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. The TNet processor interface in Horst translates a CPU transaction into a TNet transaction. Ex. 1009, 5 (“The interface to the destination CPU or I/O device provides mapping and validation hardware translating this virtual TNet address to the appropriate physical memory address.”), Figs. 5, 7; Ex. 2021 ¶ 94 (“The TNet Processor Interface generates TNet transactions from CPU front-side bus transactions.”). The TNet processor interface then encodes the TNet transaction using an 8B/9B encoder so that it can be output over the 9-bit serial TNet links. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48, 146; Ex. 1009, 3, Figs. 3, 4 (showing “8B/9B encoder”), Table 1; Ex. 2021 ¶ 105. Petitioner does not identify persuasive evidence indicating that either the CPU transaction or the TNet transaction is a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Pet. 31–34 (citing Ex. 1009, 3–8, Figs. 2, 3, 5, 7–9, Table 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159[24C(i)], 159[24C(iv)], 159[24C(v)], 159[31B(i)], 159[31B(iii)]); Ex. 2021 ¶ 129. Thus, the evidence identified in the Petition does not indicate that the information output by the TNet processor interface over the TNet links includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form. Petitioner points out that, after a TNet transaction is communicated over the TNet links, a TNet bus interface in the console may use information in the TNet transaction to create a PCI industry standard bus transaction if a particular I/O device is connected to a PCI bus. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1009, 7, Fig. 8). But claims 24 and 31 require more than just communicating information over serial channels that subsequently might be used in the console to create a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Claims 24 and 31, when read in light of the specification, require that the information actually communicated over the serial channels includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form. Ex. 1001, col. 20, ll. 60–65, col. 21, ll. 15–21, col. 27, ll. 34–38, col. 28, ll. 34–39; Ex. 2022, 15:12–16:2, 22:11–16. As discussed above, the evidence identified in the Petition does not indicate that the information output by the TNet processor interface over the TNet links includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner

    “The evidence identified by Patent Owner indicates that the date “2 October 1996” on Bogaerts is when it was submitted to the CERN/LHCC committee. Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 170, 171, 173; Ex. 2026, 12. Although it is possible that Bogaerts was available in the CERN Library at or around the same time, Petitioner has not shown that by a preponderance of the evidence. For example, Petitioner does not cite persuasive evidence indicating that the “Submitted by 2 Oct 1996” entry in the CERN Document Server record means that Bogaerts was available in the CERN Library on that date. Tr. 23:1–12, 25:5–25; Pet. Reply 21–25. In addition, Petitioner acknowledges that the CERN Document Server record itself was not created until December 18, 2014. Tr. 25:5–25; Ex. 2011, 439. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Bogaerts is a prior art printed publication based on its availability in the CERN Library.” slip op. at 17

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “should be excluded for lack of authentication under Fed. R. Evid. 901. PO Mot. 2–6. Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires that the proponent produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what the proponent claims it is. Here, Patent Owner does not dispute that Exhibit 1011 is what Petitioner claims it is, namely a reference entitled “RD24 Status Report: Application of the Scalable Coherent Interface to Data Acquisition at LHC.” Id. What Patent Owner disputes is whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Bogaerts is prior art with respect to the ’814 patent. Id. Patent Owner attempts to characterize this dispute as a question of authentication, arguing that Petitioner has not produced “evidence that [Exhibit 1011] is a true and correct copy of a publication that was publicly available as of the date asserted by Petitioner.” Id. at 3. But this is a question of sufficiency of proof, not admissibility. Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1011 is denied.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS RE42,814 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham

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.