• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2021-01266 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 29, 36–38, 44–46, 48, 49, and 56–58 unpatentable as obvious over Reime, with additional grounds also supporting the challenged claims.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In addition, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude certain of Petitioner’s evidence (Paper 32) and Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 33). We denied this motion. See Final Dec. 58–61.” slip op. at 3

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

    “transmission paths. See Pet. Reply 14–15; PO Sur-reply 15. And we agree with both parties that the light that is transmitted directly through the plate to the sensor element does not have intervening reflections—such is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “directly to.” See PO Resp. 31–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; PO Sur-reply 15. Nothing in claim 48’s language, however, requires that all of the reflected light be transmitted directly to the sensor element, which Patent Owner argues. Ex. 1001, 70:32–35; PO Resp. 31–32; PO Sur-reply 14–16. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the claim language “merely requires that some light reflected by the object goes ‘directly to’ at least one sensor element once it is transmitted through the viewing plane defining plate.” Pet. Reply 14. We also agree that “none of these dependent claims purport to be exclusive of one another.” Id. at 15. Rather, claims 46–48 simply require some light be transmitted (or propagated) for their particular transmission path, without reciting all light. See Ex. 1001, 70:24–35.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We find Petitioner’s arguments based on Reime alone insufficient. Thus, we find that Petitioner does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 49 is rendered obvious by Reime alone.” slip op. at 52

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “And in view of the above, we find persuasive Dr. Bederson’s testimony that “[c]hoosing a multi-element detector or a single-element detector would have been a simple design choice using commercially available detectors.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 117. Accordingly, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for Reime’s receivers to be implemented using discrete single-element detectors. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”). We find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner relies on expert testimony to gap-fill missing elements regarding Reime’s failure to disclose or suggest the different claim arrangements of detector elements in a ‘detector assembly.’” PO Resp. 78 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111–119; Ex. 2056 ¶ 171). Rather, in light of Reime’s teachings, coupled with the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to employ discrete single-element detectors for Reime’s receivers. See Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding obviousness can rely on supported expert testimony to supply an element of a claim). We appropriately consider such evidence of the knowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had as part of our obviousness analysis. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Moreover, “AAPA can be important evidence of general background knowledge, and general knowledge can be used to supply a missing claim 1371, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Here, Petitioner relies on the cited AAPA as evidence of one of ordinary skill in the art’s general knowledge at the time of the ’093 patent, and the AAPA is not the basis for this ground. See Pet. 4, 42–43; Pet. Remand 4–5. As Shockwave Med. explains, Federal Circuit “case law has long recognized numerous permissible uses for general background knowledge in an IPR such as, ‘for example, furnishing a motivation to combine, or supplying a missing claim limitation.” 142 F.4th at 1378–79 (quoting Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., 24 F.4th 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Randall Mfg., 733 F.3d at 1362; Koninklijke, 948 F.3d at 1337–38)).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,569,093 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,569,093
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2022-01421 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 8–24, and 26–30 as obvious over Roese, Golnabi, Huima, and Hayter; claims 6, 7, and 25 with Esbensen added.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, supported by Dr. Jacobson’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, four years of industry experience, and a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and points to an equivalent level adopted in the ’148 FWD. See PO Resp. 6. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art 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), and, ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelMixed

    “Issue preclusion [(i.e., collateral estoppel)] is appropriate only if: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” slip op. at 9

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

    “caching occur “while the rule sets are being swapped.” Id. at 14–15. Patent Owner recites the surrounding steps or processes to the “caching the one or more packets” limitation, and asserts that the limitation requires “the packets are cached while the rule sets are being swapped.” Id. Although Patent Owner has provided the context of the claim limitation, we are not persuaded that such a stricture needs to be imported into the claim limitation itself. The “caching the one or more packets” limitation itself does not require that such caching can only occur while the rule sets are being swapped. The plain meaning of caching packets alone does not require such a restriction. The independent claims employ “comprising” language and could allow, for example, for the caching of packets, after the signal to process packets in accordance with the second rule set has been received, even if the swapping of rule sets has not yet occurred. Patent Owner’s construction attempts to incorporate other aspects of the claims into a single limitation that is not so limited under its plain and ordinary meaning. We are not persuaded that specifying when the caching occurs, i.e., while the rule sets are being swapped, is integral to the plain and ordinary meaning of “caching the one or more packets.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “to its temporal aspect of when caching of packets occurs, i.e., its claim construction that such caching occurs during a swapping of rule sets. As discussed above in Section II.B, we are not persuaded that the limitation “caching the one or more packets” requires that the caching must occur only while the rule sets are swapped. We are persuaded, however, that Roese, Huima and Hayter teach, as proposed by Petitioner, the caching of at least some portion of a packet while rule sets are being swapped. the rapid response identifier signal is received, the response system initiates the process of configuring the forwarding engine with the one or more policies and/or PERs, and Huima teaches that in response to receiving a signal to change the rule set, packet processing pauses. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 47, 52; Ex. 1006 ¶ 31. We agree with Petitioner’s assertion that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a network device should pause the processing of any pending packets and any incoming packets that arrive after the instruction to change the rule set but before the change is completed, in view of Roese and Huima. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 171). Further, we continue to be persuaded that Hayter teaches using a packet processor with an integrated cache to store at least portions of packets in the L2 cache, and we are persuaded that such storage would occur while awaiting processing to begin again. Pet. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:40–48, 3:53–59, 6:3–26, 24:34– 36; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178–179). We are persuaded that this teaches or suggests that any caching of packets, or portions thereof, would occur in the period between when a signal is received to change rule sets and when processing of packets reoccurs under the new rule set. As such, we consider Patent Owner’s arguments in the context of whether the combination of Roese, Golnabi, Huima, and Hayter would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that entire packets should be cached in the combined system.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,681,009 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,681,009
• Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00806 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 9–12, and 15–18 are unpatentable as obvious over either Roberts and Asokan or Suumäki; claims 6–8 and 19 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, supported by Dr. Schmidt’s testimony, has proposed that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a degree in computer engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, along with 2 years of professional experience in the fields of networking and network-based systems or applications, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience,” and would have been “aware of and generally knowledgeable about how devices were provisioned onto wireless networks, along with standards applicable to well-known methods for communication such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and NFC available at the time the ’615 patent was filed.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–39). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art 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), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we considered the assertions of Petitioner that the terms of the ’615 patent’s claims do not require further construction and can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning. Dec. to Inst. 7 (citing Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–82). Patent Owner also does not assert any express constructions. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. Given the lack of controversy, we need not explicitly adopt or discuss any explicit constructions in this decision. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenMixed

    “that the section of the Petition discussing claim 6 does not discuss the combination of embodiments; it merely asserts what would have been obvious in the context of the cited embodiment. See Pet. 36–37. See, e.g., In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), headnote 4, “Whether a rejection of a patent claim for obviousness is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” See also, Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. IPR2023-00342, 2024 WL 3165359, at *31 (P.T.A.B. June 25, 2024) (Distinguishing Stephan for simultaneous actions). Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and any discussion of claim 6, explaining its obviousness, must consider the obviousness case for the independent claim in its analysis. Petitioner’s observation that Roberts is agnostic as to how network configuration information is conveyed does not relieve Petitioner of the requirement of making that case in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 21

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s argument. Although Petitioner is correct that Roberts discloses different embodiments for conveying configuration information, those embodiments are distinct. See Ex. 1004, that the section of the Petition discussing claim 6 does not discuss the combination of embodiments; it merely asserts what would have been obvious in the context of the cited embodiment. See Pet. 36–37. See, e.g., In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), headnote 4, “Whether a rejection of a patent claim for obviousness is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” See also, Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. IPR2023-00342, 2024 WL 3165359, at *31 (P.T.A.B. June 25, 2024) (Distinguishing Stephan for simultaneous actions). Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and any discussion of claim 6, explaining its obviousness, must consider the obviousness case for the independent claim in its analysis. Petitioner’s observation that Roberts is agnostic as to how network configuration information is conveyed does not relieve Petitioner of the requirement of making that case in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,050,615 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,050,615
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00446 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21

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

    “how and why persons of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the existing rules to prevent exfiltrations. PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions to make them “drop” rules, per Sourcefire, relies on what an administrator could have done, not what they would have been motivated to do. Id. at 4–5 (citing Pet. 57–58). We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art, combining Sourcefire and Emerging Threats, would have understood that downloaded rules should be reviewed, and it would have been obvious to enable rules that such persons deemed appropriate. We find Dr. Staniford’s testimony to be persuasive on this point. See Ex. 2011, 67:10–68:24, 69:8–72; Ex. 1020, 109. We acknowledge that downloading all of a particualr ruleset from Emerging Threats and enabling all the rules, might have resulted in a drop in performance of the network appliance, but, at the same time, we are significant drop in performance, especially if a potential threat might be sufficient to warrant a minor performance hit. Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged at oral hearing that instituting all rules of a set in “alert” mode would not result in a decrease in performance, even though some computational outlay must be engaged to engage those alert rules. See Hr’g Tr. 24:24–25:4. We are persuaded that judiciously implementing certain rules would not necessary result in a network device that is unusable. Additionally, there is testimony from Dr. Staniford that “you start out with your rules in alert because there might be false positives. I mean, for the best rule in the world, Snort wasn’t known for false positives in the rules, when you apply them to a large network.” Ex. 2011, 68:2–7. As such, we continue to determine that it would have been obvious, in combining Sourcefire with Emerging Threats, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have downloaded rules and implemented specific rules.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Reviewing all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the Petition’s obviousness rationale based on Sourcefire and Emerging Threats is not guided by impermissible hindsight bias. We find persuasive Dr. Staniford’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “this rule [SID:2003021] was not directed to looking for instances of exploits or attacks (which would be invisible within the encryption) but rather was looking for exfiltration of some kind of encrypted data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. As discussed by Petitioner, such recognition was also made by Mr. Marinho and Dr. Goodrich, such that the rule would have been understood to possibly prevent exfiltrations. We continue to be persuaded that Petitioner provides that a correspondence exists between the REQUIRE-TLS-1.1-1.2 operator in the ’343 Patent and SID:2003021 in Emerging Threats, in that both detect an SSL/TLS version in application packet header field values to detect exfiltration attempts using out-of-date encryption protocols. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 229–230). We are ’343 Patent discloses the interruption of a similar type of exfiltration, without resorting to impermissible hindsight bias, that Patent Owner asserts. Patent Owner has provided no evidence that Petitioner used the specification of the ’343 Patent to find an applicable rule in Emerging Threats, as opposed to the testified-version provided by Dr. Staniford that he recalls “working on a similar feature where we looked for large encrypted transmissions outbound from the network on non-HTTP ports as a possible symptom of exfiltration of large amounts of data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,567,343
• Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Zentian LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00036 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10, 12–14, 16–18, 20–23, 25–28, 35, 37–39, and 42–45 are unpatentable; claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 24, and 29 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “(“POSITA”) would have had “a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with at least four years of experience in the field of speech recognition,” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner contends that the Petition and supporting evidence, including the testimony of Mr. Schmandt, does not demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would have been able to fabricate an integrated circuit. PO Resp. 1. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would not also be expected to have specialized knowledge in integrated circuit fabrication in Petitioner does not present arguments to the contrary. See generally Reply. We agree with Petitioner, that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would have had a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with four years of experience in the field of speech recognition.3 Ex. 1001, 1:25–2:27 (describing in the “Background of Invention” section of the ’789 patent various speech recognition systems and methods). We also agree with Patent Owner, and rely on the supporting testimony of Dr. Anderson, in finding that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would not have been a person of ordinary skill in the field of integrated circuit fabrication, and would not have had the education, experience, or skill necessary to fabricate an integrated circuit.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner “applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms as understood by a POSITA for all terms.” Pet. 5. We conclude that no terms require express construction to resolve a dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (internal citation omitted)).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of evidence, that state memory 342 of Smyth is fabricated on the same integrated circuit as processor 341. Petitioner, in asserting that processor 341 and state memory 342 are on the same integrated circuit, cites the following testimony of Mr. Schmandt: In my opinion, the Motorola DSP56000 provides both memory and a processor fabricated on a single integrated circuit (IC). Kloker (Ex. 1009), 1 (discussing the Motorola DSP56000 includes “a core processor, RAM, ROM, peripheral interfaces, and a memory expansion interface on a single, 88-pin chip[”)]. . . . A POSITA would have understood or at least found obvious that Smyth thus teaches a single IC on which both classifier processor 341 and state memory 342 are fabricated. Ex. 1003 ¶ 165; Pet. 39. We do not credit Mr. Schmandt’s testimony because it is inconsistent with Smyth’s disclosure. Smyth discloses that classifier 34 comprises classifying processor 341 and state memory 342, and that “classifying processor 341 may be a suitably programmed digital signal processing (DSP) device.” Ex. 1005, 5:55–57, 6:5–6. Thus, Smyth itself, in discussing classifier 34, distinguishes processor 341 from state memory 342 in stating that only processor 341, and not both processor 341 and state memory 342, may be located on the DSP. describe processor 341 and state memory 342 as being fabricated on a single integrated circuit. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 34–37. Dr. Anderson persuasively explains that processor 341 and state memory 342 could not be fabricated on the same integrated circuit, because the design of the DSP for processor 341 does not include any memory that meets the requirements of state memory 342. Id. ¶¶ 38–45. We rely on the testimony of Dr. Anderson in finding that Petitioner has not shown that Smyth teaches that processor 341 and state memory 342 are fabricated on a single integrated circuit.” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Decision to Institute, we understood Petitioner’s theory based on the combination of Smyth and Mozer to include fabricating an integrated circuit in stating that we were sufficiently persuaded “that fabricating a single integrated circuit that includes a calculating apparatus and an acoustic model memory . . . was within the level of ordinary skill.” Dec. 23. Our understanding was based on the Petition’s multiple contentions that a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to fabricate Smyth’s processor and state memory on a single integrated circuit. See Pet. 41–44. For example, the Petition contends that “[a] POSITA would have found it obvious . . . to fabricate [Smyth’s processor and state memory] on a single integrated circuit” (Pet. 41–42 (emphasis added)); “a POSITA would have understood and found obvious . . . to fabricate a calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory on a single integrated circuit” (Pet. 42 (emphasis added)); “[s]uch a use of a known technique of fabricating a memory and processor on a single integrated circuit” (id. (emphasis added)); “it would have been obvious to modify Smyth to form the classifier processor and associated memory on a single IC” (Pet. 43 (emphasis added)); (“it was well known in the prior art to fabricate a single integrated circuit” (Pet. 43–44 (emphasis added)); “[t]hus, a POSITA would have been motivated . . . to fabricate [Smyth’s processor and state memory] on a single integrated circuit” (Pet. 44 (emphasis added)). integrated circuit to using integrated circuits that were already fabricated. Reply 22–25. According to Petitioner, “the Petition did not map a POSITA physically fabricating an IC, but rather mapped a POSITA modifying Smyth according to Mozer’s undisputed teachings of a single IC on which a calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory were already fabricated.” Id. at 23–24. However, as discussed in the previous paragraph, when discussing the combination of a processor and an acoustic model memory on an integrated circuit, the Petition used the verb “to fabricate” four times in the future tense and once in the present tense, as well as the verb “to form” once in the future tense. The Petition did not use the past tense phrase “were already fabricated” as alleged in the Reply. Moreover, the Petition did not map Smyth’s state memory (which the Petition contends teaches the claimed “acoustic model memory” (see Pet. 11)) to a memory already fabricated on an integrated circuit in the prior art. Rather, the Petition relied on Mozer to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have fabricated the calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory of Smyth on an integrated circuit. See Pet. 42, 44. The Petition cited Boike and Ozcelik in contending that fabricating an integrated circuit with processors and memories was well known, and cited Toyoda in contending that fabricating an integrated circuit with a calculating apparatus and an acoustic model memory was well known. Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1006; Ex. 1029; Ex. 1034). However, the Petition did not explain how a memory located in one of the integrated circuits of Mozer, Boike, Ozcelik, or Toyoda would have been able to store Smyth’s state memory. Therefore, we disagree with Petitioner’s contention that “the Petition did not map a POSITA physically fabricating an IC, but rather mapped a single IC on which a calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory were already fabricated.” Reply 23–24. We find that this contention was untimely presented in the Reply. We do not permit Petitioner to propose a mapping of the prior art in the Petition and then completely change that mapping after Patent Owner argues the initial mapping was flawed. A “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.” TPG 73; see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the Board did not err in refusing the reply brief as improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) because petitioner relied on an entirely new rationale to explain why one of skill in the art would have combined the references at issue); 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Apple Inc. v. eWatch, Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, 44 (PTAB May 6, 2016) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean embark in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the position originally taken in the Petition. Accepting such belatedly presented new arguments would be unjust to the Patent Owner and we decline to do so.”).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,839,789 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,839,789
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2020-00558 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand

  The majority determined claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable over Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst; the dissent would have found them obvious.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “We determine Patent Owner’s reading of the claim limitation is the better one. The limitation begins with the verb “locating,” and it therefore makes sense that the clause would recite what is located (i.e., encryption information) and where it is located (i.e., within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video). In other words, it is reasonable that the second and third clauses of the limitation both modify the first clause (for example, as could perhaps be expressed through the use of commas as “locating encryption information, that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video, within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video”).10 On the other hand, Petitioner’s reading of the limitation, 10 In general, we recognize that the use of commas to set off phrases in claim drafting is not consistent. We included commas above to illustrate Patent Owner’s understanding of the claim limitation. allowing only the second clause to modify the first, while not unreasonable, makes less sense. That is, the encrypted information identifies the encrypted portions of frames, which in turn are within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video. Reading the claim in its entirety, the encrypted portions of frames would be understood to be located within the requested portions of the stream; it does not seem necessary for the claim to expressly recite that aspect. For example, the very next limitation— limitation [m] of claim 1—refers to “each encrypted portion of the frames of video” but does not expressly recite “within the requested portions of the selected stream.” Ex. 1001, 27:58–60. Thus, when limitation [l] recites “within the requested portions of the selected stream,” it seems more likely that the clause refers to where that encrypted information is located rather than simply to indicate the obvious location of the encrypted portion of the frames of video. We therefore view Patent Owner’s reading of the claim language as the better one.” slip op. at 13

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

    “I am persuaded that the Petition demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst, as asserted by Petitioner. As the Federal Circuit found, the Petition pointed to and relied upon the portions in Chen describing pre-Chen art, without scalability or FEC features that were part of what Chen describes as aspects of its own inventive system. Netflix, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Pet. 17– 19, 69–70). I agree with Petitioner that “Chen-924 teaches several embodiments that adaptively stream alternative representations of a video using partially encrypted container files.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1010, 14:41– 15:60). I determine that Chen-924 provides support for the rationale provided in the Petition, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen and Lindahl in view of the disclosure of Chen-924. As discussed above, the Petition does not rely solely on privacy concerns and improvements to efficiency as its motivation to combine the references. See Pet. 18–19 (specifying piracy concerns, improvements to the efficiency of adaptive streaming, optimization of the balance between bitrate and bandwidth, and improvements to the end-user experience with fast startup and seek). With respect to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have” slip op. at 52

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “I agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, specifically pages 1–7, attempt to address aspects of claim 1 for the first time on remand. I also agree that Patent Owner’s arguments attempt to recharacterize limitations [j] and [k] to raise issues that Patent Owner did not raise previously, in contravention of our Order that issues raised needed support from “where those issues were raised in previous briefings by the parties.” Paper 56, 2. I have addressed whether scalability and FEC are integral to how Chen operates above, as well as whether the Petition relies on those aspects, supra. The questions about how Chen operates and what portions of Chen are asserted in the ground of unpatentability were previously raised, but now are being considered or reconsidered, based on the Federal Circuit’s decision. In Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, pages 1–7, the citations to argument previously raised do not support the arguments now presented by Patent Owner on remand. As such, I determine Patent Owner’s new arguments fall outside the scope of remand, and I dismiss these arguments seeking to distinguish limitations [j] and [k] from the cited prior art combination.24” slip op. at 62

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMixed

    “7 Patent Owner’s Brief on Remand recognizes that there are two arguments Patent Owner raised in its Patent Owner Response that were not addressed in the Final Written Decision. See PO Remand Br. 1 (citing PO Resp. 24–37 (the construction of “locating encrypted information . . . within requested portions”), 38–58 (referring to Patent Owner’s “common keys” argument)). 8 The Final Decision also addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 42). See Final Dec. 28–37 (granting-in-part, denying-in-part, and dismissing-in-part Petitioner’s Motion). Our determinations on that Motion were part of Petitioner’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Paper 52. Because the Federal Circuit did not address this aspect of the Final Written Decision and the Federal Circuit’s decision does not impact our previous rulings on the Motion, we maintain those rulings here. Additionally, on remand, Petitioner requested authorization to file a motion for sanctions, which we held in abeyance until the parties’ briefing on remand was complete. See Ex. 3003, 1. Petitioner requests sanctions because of the impropriety of Patent Owner’s remand brief, including new claim construction arguments for limitations [1j] and [1k], and prejudice to Petitioner. Id. at 3, 5. Although we reserved further consideration of Petitioner’s request, we expanded both the time and pages allowed for Petitioner’s responsive brief, and also allowed Petitioner to address any related issues in its responsive brief. Id. at 1. Having considered the parties’ briefing on remand, and given that we do not reach the claim construction arguments that Petitioner objected to in its request for authorization to file a motion for sanctions, we deny Petitioner’s request.” slip op. at 5

  Patent outcomesUS 10,225,588 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,225,588
• International Business Machines Corporation v. Ebates Performance Marketing, Inc. Dba Rakuten RewardsSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2024 · IPR2022-01250 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–22 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable because the petition did not identify corresponding structure for limitation 23A.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been someone knowledgeable in information technology and networking” and “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately 2 years of experience working in information technology and networking.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 111). Without agreeing that it is proper, Patent Owner and its expert apply Petitioner’s proposal. See PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 33–34.). For the purposes of this Decision, we continue to use the same assessment offered by Petitioner that we adopted in our preliminary assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art in the Institution Decision, as it is consistent with the ’960 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 9

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

    “exception to a security rule” and/or “exceptions to security rules.” See e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:18, 15:29. In its Response, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the phrase “exception to a security rule” is “an instance in which a security rule does not apply.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]he ’960 patent does not set out any special definition of ‘exception,’ ‘exception to a security rule,’ or ‘exceptions to security rules.’” Id. (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 41–43). Patent Owner also indicates that “the ’960 patent describes that exceptions to security rules may represent an ‘anomaly’ from general circumstances, or a situation in which a security rule may be permissibly violated such as once an administrator or manager grants approval for a violation.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:58–6:15, 7:22–39, 9:51–10:18). Patent Owner asserts that “[a]n exception to a security rule can be associated with adjusting risk indicated by the security rule,” and that “exceptions may indicate instances in which risk should be scored differently than what is specified by the general security rule and to which the security rule does not apply.” PO Resp. 10. In its Reply, Petitioner agrees with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “exception to a security rule” is “an instance in which a security rule does not apply,” and that this agreed upon meaning is consistent with the ’960 patent in that that “minimum security baseline rules may include minimum security policies.” Pet. Reply 2–3. Given the absence of a special definition of these phrases in the ’960 patent, the ’960 patent’s indication that minimum security baseline rules may include minimum security policies, the lack of any testimony by the parties’ experts contesting a general understanding of the term in the art, and the agreement by the parties as to the plain meaning of the term, we adopt for purposes of this Decision that the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrases “exception to a security rule” or “exceptions to security rules” mean “an instance in which a security rule does not apply.” See PO Resp. 8–16; Pet. Reply 2–5; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 41–57; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66, 114–115, 134, 185; Ex. 2006, 62:2–24. slip op. at 11

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

    “means plus function limitations. Ex. 1001, 18:22–37. 35 U.S.C. § 112 “allows a patentee to express a claim limitation by reciting a function to be performed rather than by reciting structure or materials for performing that function.” Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp., 325 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A term written in means-plus-function form is construed to cover “the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof” for performing the recited functions. 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Use of the term “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that a claim term is a means-plus-function limitation. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This presumption may be rebutted if the claim recites structure sufficient to perform the described functions in their entirety. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the functions in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.” Id. at 1259–1260; see Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that one may still consider the written description to “inform the analysis of whether the claim recites sufficiently definite structure to overcome the presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 governs the construction of the claim”) (overruled on other grounds by Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1339). In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s construction of the means-plus-function limitations in the challenged claims. Dec. 15. Each of claim 23’s limitations is presumptively written in means-plus-function form, and prior to institution, Patent Owner did not attempt to rebut this presumption and did not point to anything in claim 23’s limitations that articulated structure sufficient to perform the described functions in their entirety. Id. (citing TriMed v. Stryker, 514 F.3d at 1259–1260). Post institution, Patent Owner agrees the terms should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6 as means-plus-function terms, that the specification describes appropriate corresponding structure for each of these terms, and that each of these terms is not indefinite. PO Resp. 17 (citing Pet. 18–20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–133). For some of the claim terms, Patent Owner identifies “a more complete listing of corresponding structure.” Id. In its Reply, Petitioner does not object to Patent Owner’s identification of corresponding structure. See generally Pet. Reply.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to modify Andres’s system in view of Dodd’s teachings to provide the option to consider the difficulty in fixing a particular vulnerability.” Pet. 22. Petitioner points out that “Andres teaches a vulnerability remediation module 127 which ‘provides automated ticketing and workflow that manages remediation activities’ (Ex. 1003, 19:39–41) and that risk scores should inform the remediation process, such that administrators can ‘first take the remediation steps that will most significantly improve the overall security of the network.’” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003, 18:21–23). Petitioner asserts that “Dodd similarly teaches ‘when multiple vulnerabilities have the same computed risk, a user of the security audit system can address those that are easier to fix first.’” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 37). “Such remediation prioritization,” Petitioner argues, “allows an administrator to be more effective in his or her responsibilities even with the limited time and resources of many administrators.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003, 18:23–25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–140). Petitioner asserts that “Dodd provides the option to use a ‘fix difficulty value’ for the vulnerability to adjust a risk value associated with that particular vulnerability.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 36). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood Dodd’s optional adjustment of risk values based on the vulnerability fix difficulty to be an obvious addition to Andres.” Pet. 23. “Indeed,” Petitioner argues, “the same problem of effectively prioritizing remediation actions described in Andres underlies the adjustment process of Dodd.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 10, 23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 141–142). Petitioner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated by the common goals of Andres and Dodd (utilizing risk scoring to inform/prioritize vulnerability remediation) to incorporate Dodd’s adjustment process into Andres’s system.” Pet. 24. “By adding Dodd’s option to adjust the risk score by a fix difficulty value to Andres’s system,” Petitioner argues, “a user of the combined system could more effectively prioritize the easiest to fix vulnerabilities, and therefore decrease the number of vulnerabilities threatening the network.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 37). “This would facilitate the early resolution of easier vulnerabilities,” Petitioner argues, “before they can be exploited in an attack and allow the ‘limited time and resources’ of administrators to be focused on the more difficult vulnerabilities.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 18:23–25). Petitioner argues that the enhanced prioritization “would also allow administrators to incorporate business factors such as cost into decisions about remediation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–144).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,962,960 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,962,960
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. / Kioxia Corporation et al. v. Viasat, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01126 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 8, 15, 17, and 19 are unpatentable as anticipated by Wu; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “1 Kioxia Corporation and Kioxia America, Inc. filed a petition and a motion for joinder in IPR2023-00408 and have been joined as petitioners to this proceeding. INTRODUCTION A. Background and Summary Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) seeking an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 17, and 19 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,615,700 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’700 Patent”). Viasat, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted an inter partes review. Paper 13 (“Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”). Kioxia Corporation and Kioxia America, Inc. (collectively, “Kioxia”) filed a substantively identical petition, and we granted institution and joined Kioxia as a petitioner to this proceeding. Paper 25 (copy of Paper 9 from IPR2023-00408).” slip op. at 1

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties’ articulations of the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar, and we adopt parts of each party’s description of a POSITA’s education and experience. We agree with Patent Owner that computer engineering is a relevant field of study. PO Resp. 3. Our finding is supported by the ’700 Patent, which describes systems, devices, methods, and software for forward error correction for a flash memory system, which may be integrated with a computer, server, or other computing device. Ex. 1001, 3:23–30. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposal regarding the length of a POSITA’s practical experience—two years—rather than four years, as proposed by Petitioner. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Dolecek assert that two years of practical experience would have been insufficient to acquire POSITA’s experience would have been limited to “hardware implementation.” PO Resp. 3. Our finding is supported by the ’700 Patent, which states that “embodiments may be implemented by hardware, software, firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware description languages, or any combination thereof.” Ex. 1001, 10:26–28. Petitioner’s assertion that a POSITA needs to have experience in “error correction coding (‘ECC’) systems (which include forward error correction or ‘FEC’systems)” (Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 25) is consistent with the ’700 Patent, which discloses methods, systems, and devices for forward error correction for flash memory. Ex. 1001, code (57); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57, 66 (explaining that error correction coding (“ECC”) includes forward error correction (“FEC”)). For these reasons, we find that a POSITA would have had a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science or a related field, and two years of experience designing, developing, or researching error correction coding systems, which include forward error correction systems.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “arrows between scrambler 103 and ECC Engines 822-0 to 822-M in Wu’s Figure 8 is sufficient to disclose the generation of a plurality of data streams, as claimed. Pet. 36–37; Pet. Reply 2–6. As between Petitioner’s position that the multiple arrows in Wu’s Figure 8 represent multiple data streams (Pet. 36–37; Pet. Reply 2–3), and Patent Owner’s position that “those arrows are not meant to be taken literally as literal data streams” (Tr. 35:16–17), we find that Petitioner’s position is more reasonable, consistent with the legal standard for anticipation, and amply supported in the record. “In an anticipation analysis, the dispositive question is whether a skilled artisan would ‘reasonably understand or infer’ from a prior art reference that every claim limitation is disclosed in that single reference.” Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Itron Networked Sols., Inc., 949 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). “Expert testimony may shed light on what a skilled artisan would reasonably understand or infer from a prior art reference.” Id. (citing Monsanto Tech. LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 878 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Dr. Dolecek’s testimony about Wu’s Figure 8 and a “plurality of data streams” is more credible than Dr. Bagherzadeh’s testimony on this topic. Dr. Bagherzadeh testifies that Wu’s scrambler “does not split, copy, or otherwise ‘generate a plurality of partially decoded data streams.’” Id. ¶¶ 100, 108. But that testimony fails to take into account what the depiction of multiple double-sided arrows in Wu’s Figure 8 would have meant to a POSITA, as Dr. Dolecek testifies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 86 (reproducing Wu’s Figure 8 with double-headed arrows between ECC engines 822-0 to 822-M and scrambler 103 shaded yellow to identify a “plurality of partially decoded data streams”). The evidence does not support Dr. Bagherzadeh’s opinion that Wu’s Figure 8 is “incompatible” with Wu’s description and “there’s no way to generate a plurality of data streams from the Scrambler to the ECC Engines.” Ex. 2023 ¶ 109. As Dr. Dolecek explained below, when viewed through the eyes of a POSITA, Wu discloses that the scrambler can generate a plurality of data streams. After quoting from Dr. Dolecek’s deposition testimony (Ex. 2023 ¶ 107 (quoting Ex. 2024, 32:15–22)), Dr. Bagherzadeh asserts that “Dr. Dolecek does not explain how she believes the intra-channel operation of the Scrambler on the ‘one long data stream’ it receives could generate a account Dr. Dolecek’s testimony in response to follow-up questions from Patent Owner. Q So you have found the plurality of data streams in the three arrows of Figure 8 going from the scrambler to the ECC engines? A Yes. . . . Q And how exactly, in your understanding as a person of skill, does the scrambler generate that plurality? . . . THE WITNESS: . . . So the person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these are multiple arrows here indicated explicitly to suggest parallel operations of the ECC engines. And for them to have parallel operations, a person of ordinary skill in the art would assume that they are receiving inputs at the same time, and the scrambler would, for example, do that by sending descrambled data to different engines at a time, one at a time. . . . Q So how does the scrambler’s function of intrachannel rearrangement generate multiple data streams? . . . THE WITNESS: Once it’s descrambled on a per-block basis, it simply sends that block to a given engine, ECC engine. . . . Q Can the scrambler send out multiple data streams in parallel at the same time? A If it’s designed like that, yes. Ex. 2024, 32:24–34:7 (objections and witness’s false start omitted). Q So describe for me how in Figure 8 that would work for your analysis where the scrambler receiving the data from the multiplexer would then generate the plurality of partially decoded data streams. A Right. Figure 8. So if it receives a long string of data that has already been processed by the 104 unit, it would perform intra- -- intrachannel, if you will, intrablock disarrangement of data. And then it could” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,615,700 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,615,700
• Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00557 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 10–12, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 6, and 8 were not shown unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would be a person with a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent training or job experience, with two years of experience in computer networking technology, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or other equivalent degree.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). Patent Owner indicates that it does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art 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), and, therefore, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “associated sessions” With respect to the limitation “associated sessions,” Patent Owner asserted that the ’669 Patent defines those sessions as those that “should not be managed independent from each another,” and continues to assert the same in its Response. PO Resp. 14–15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:37–38). Based on the recitations of the Specification, we construe “associated sessions” as “sessions that should not be managed independent from each other,” as proffered by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 7:37–38. slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas rejected Petitioner’s proposed construction in the District Court Case, and following briefing and oral argument in that proceeding, the District Court concluded that “composition session” means “a signaling session that is separate from the associated sessions and that is for facilitating management of the associated sessions.” PO Resp. 16. Having reviewed the District Court’s determination, we do not discern a significant difference in scope between it and Petitioner’s formulation, and we, thus, adopt its construction of “composition session” in the analysis below.” slip op. at 9

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

    “As such, we continue to determine that Petitioner has sufficiently established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a rationale to combine the teachings of Foti with RFC 3261, RFC 4566, RFC 2326, Wright, and Lloyd, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving that combination, as we determined in the Institution Decision. See Inst. Dec. 17–18. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have consulted and utilized disclosures in the RFC references to understand and implement the protocols disclosed by Foti. We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that such skilled artisans would have had a rationale to combine the teachings of Wright and Lloyd with those of Foti for the reasons provided. Petitioner has asserted that each of the supporting references would have been used by persons of ordinary skill in the art to modify or enhance the system described in Foti for the benefits described for the proposed changes. Absent reasons the references should not be combined, we determine that the motivation proffered by the Petition is sufficient to support the combination, under the preponderance of the evidence standard.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,667,669 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,667,669
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01152 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, 19, and 20 over Jungck and Bhatia; claims 4, 11, and 18 over Jungck, Bhatia, and RFC 2003.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and four years of professional experience,” with a lack of work experience being remedied by additional education and vice versa. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 25). Patent Owner takes a position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art that appears to be analogous to that taken by Petitioner. PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 28-32). We continue to find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art 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), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision. See Dec. 11–12.” slip op. at 6

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelMixed

    “Issue preclusion [i.e., collateral estoppel] is appropriate only if: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377 (citing Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313, 91 S. Ct. 1501, 28 L.Ed. 2d 788 (1971) (finding collateral estoppel applies to a patentee who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of a patent in a prior federal case.)). With respect to the language of the Challenged Claims, we continue to agree with Patent Owner on the issues of collateral estoppel. As Patent Owner points out, the prior determinations were made with respect to a different claim construction standard. Additionally, per the analysis discussed below and Patent Owner’s discussion of the claims, we determine that the claims of the instant ’246 Patent and those recited in the ’077 and the ’205 patents are similar in scope, but the recitations are different such that the claims must be presumed to have differing scopes. Therefore, we evaluate the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the grounds of unpatentability render the challenged claims unpatentable, rather than assuming that Patent Owner is generally estopped from asserting patentability of the Challenged Claims over previously presented art. To the extent that Patent Owner raises previously decided issues, however, we determine collateral estoppel to apply to such arguments. For example, the combination of Jungck and Bhatia was previously before the Board, such that if Patent Owner were to assert that there could be no motivation to combine their teachings, generally, Patent Owner would likely be estopped because it could or did raise such issues without success. slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “Upon first consideration in our Decision on Institution, Patent Owner’s assertion regarding receiving rule sets with more than one network address made sense. Upon further consideration, however, we determine that it is an overly limiting interpretation of the claim language to require that the rule sets received be the same rule sets that are executed. Claim 1, for example, uses “comprising” language, such that its method may include more than just the steps listed, and there is no explicit recitation in the claim that requires the executed rule sets to be exactly as those received in a separate step. In contrast, claim 1 makes it explicit and clear, for example, that “the second time being after the first time, the third time being after the second time,” such that the executing steps must be performed in a certain sequence. We ascertain no such limitation for the rule sets, where an initial recitation of “a first rule set,” could have been followed with “of the received plurality of rule sets,” for example, to provide greater clarity. Without that further limitation, we presume that the scope of the plain language of the claim is greater, such that the executed rule sets need not necessarily be the same as the received plurality of rule sets. In addition, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that reading the claims as Petitioner suggests would leave no other reference to the “plurality of rule sets” in the independent claims and provide no other apparent source for the “executed” rule sets. Claim 1, for example, is broad enough to allow for the receipt of multiple rule sets, over time, such that a full complement of rule sets can be achieved for the network security device. Similarly, the “comprising” language of claim 1 would allow for the network security device to pick and choose, or create, rule sets that would satisfy the criteria for the first, second and third rule sets to be executed. To determine otherwise would be to overly limit the system that would fall within the scope of the challenged claims. Patent Owner’s interpretation is a subset of the possible formulations of a system meeting the requirements of the claim. Construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention cannot require that limitations not found in the claims themselves, or the specification, limit the claims from their natural scope. In addition, we consider the proper construction of the instant claims in the context of the specification and the knowledge of those of skill in the art, and not in the context of other prior art references proffered in this proceeding. Accordingly, we no longer conclude that the independent claims require the receipt of “a plurality of rule sets,” by the at least one network security device, such that those received sets must have any specific numbers of network addresses, where the network address criteria apply only to the rule sets being executed. Because of this, we determine no explicit limitation on the rule sets received by the network security device or computing system, other than that they provide some network protection, and determine that the number of network addresses included with specific rule sets applies to the rule sets being executed, rather than to the plurality of rule sets received.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Owner’s assertion regarding receiving rule sets with more than one network address made sense. Upon further consideration, however, we determine that it is an overly limiting interpretation of the claim language to require that the rule sets received be the same rule sets that are executed. Claim 1, for example, uses “comprising” language, such that its method may include more than just the steps listed, and there is no explicit recitation in the claim that requires the executed rule sets to be exactly as those received in a separate step. In contrast, claim 1 makes it explicit and clear, for example, that “the second time being after the first time, the third time being after the second time,” such that the executing steps must be performed in a certain sequence. We ascertain no such limitation for the rule sets, where an initial recitation of “a first rule set,” could have been followed with “of the received plurality of rule sets,” for example, to provide greater clarity. Without that further limitation, we presume that the scope of the plain language of the claim is greater, such that the executed rule sets need not necessarily be the same as the received plurality of rule sets. In addition, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that reading the claims as Petitioner suggests would leave no other reference to the “plurality of rule sets” in the independent claims and provide no other apparent source for the “executed” rule sets. Claim 1, for example, is broad enough to allow for the receipt of multiple rule sets, over time, such that a full complement of rule sets can be achieved for the network security device. Similarly, the “comprising” language of claim 1 would allow for the network security device to pick and choose, or create, rule sets that would satisfy the criteria for the first, second and third rule sets to be executed. To determine otherwise would be to overly limit the system that would fall within the scope of the challenged claims. Patent Owner’s interpretation is a subset of the possible formulations of a system meeting the requirements of the claim. Construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention cannot require that limitations not found in the claims themselves, or the specification, limit the claims from their natural scope. In addition, we consider the proper construction of the instant claims in the context of the specification and the knowledge of those of skill in the art, and not in the context of other prior art references proffered in this proceeding. Accordingly, we no longer conclude that the independent claims require the receipt of “a plurality of rule sets,” by the at least one network security device, such that those received sets must have any specific numbers of network addresses, where the network address criteria apply only to the rule sets being executed. Because of this, we determine no explicit limitation on the rule sets received by the network security device or computing system, other than that they provide some network protection, and determine that the number of network addresses included with specific rule sets applies to the rule sets being executed, rather than to the plurality of rule sets received.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,091,246 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,091,246

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.