- Digital Global Systems, Inc. v. Deepsig Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00194 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding no reasonable likelihood for the remaining claims except claim 13, whose potential success did not justify instituting trial.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent and at least two years of experience working with radio communication systems and machine learning.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description at this stage of the proceeding. We adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 16. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 4–6, 12, 14, and 16–22 would have been obvious over Jüschke and Holt. Petitioner may satisfy its burden for claim 13, but, as discussed below, that would not impact our decision to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. See Section II.F.” slip op. at 16
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“inter partes review. SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 366 (2018). Specifically, “[i]f a panel determines that a petition meets the standards for institution in relation to fewer than all the challenges presented, . . . the panel will evaluate all the challenges and determine whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system, the entire petition should be denied.” See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 64 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/tpgnov.pdf. Here, thirteen challenged claims remain after Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer. Petitioner at most demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for one dependent claim, which has no claims depending therefrom. See Sections II.C–II.E. Thus, based on the particular facts of this case, we find that instituting trial would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources, and we exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a). See Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018- 01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative); Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,777,540 - Digital Global Systems, Inc. v. Deepsig Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 27, 2025 · IPR2025-00049 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Here, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Thus, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent degree and at least two years of experience working with . . . radio communication systems and machine learning.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description at this stage of the proceeding. We adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“B. Claim Construction In an inter partes review proceeding, a patent claim is construed using the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 9–10. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. Claim 1 recites “generating a pre-distorted radio signal by processing the transmit radio signal using a nonlinear pre-distortion machine learning model.” Ex. 1001, 14:19–24. This portion of claim 1 requires processing a transmit signal using a machine learning model. Id. Claim 1 also recites “updating the model parameters based on a distance metric computed between the transmit radio signal and a received signal that is obtained from the one or more radio receivers.” Id. at 14:30–35. This portion of claim 1 requires updating model parameters based on a distance metric computed using a received signal obtained from a receiver. Id. Thus, together, these portions of claim 1 require updating parameters for a transmit model based on a distance metric computed using a signal obtained from a receiver.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,581,469 - Quasar Science LLC v. Colt International Clothing, Inc. D/B/A Colt LedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00614 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6–18, 21–24, and 27–29 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the evidence did not establish all limitations or a reason to combine the cited teachings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe a claim term “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under that standard, the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The parties agree that, for purposes of this Decision, no claim term needs specific construction beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 14; PO Resp. 10. Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any claim term.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Here, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, or a closely related field, along with at least two years of experience in the design of entertaining lighting systems, and the design and use of LEDs.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would have had “2 to 4 years’ experience in electrical engineering/design of film and television lighting systems, including the design and use of LED lights, combined with two to three years of work experience as a set lighting technician in television and/or motion picture industry.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2047 ¶¶ 16–17; Ex. 2100 ¶¶ 156–161). Patent Owner does not identify any specific instance in which the differences between the parties’ respective descriptions of the level of ordinary skill in the art impacts the analysis or conclusions of either party, or either party’s declarant, in this case. In fact, Patent Owner acknowledges that any differences between the parties’ respective descriptions do not impact the conclusions in this case. Id. (“Regardless of which definition of a POSITA is applied, the conclusion(s) would be the same.”). For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA because it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the skill level at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Kit and Katzir. Petitioner argues that “Katzir further discloses daylight and tungsten temperature ranges within the claimed temperature ranges.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 53, 54, Figs. 5A, 5B). Petitioner relies on the Holmes Declaration to show that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to look to Katzir to design an LED array to be retrofit in a fluorescent tube.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 102). Mr. Holmes testifies that [b]oth Kit and Katzir teach using LEDs of various colors in a fluorescent tube form factor, like a T8 or T12 fluorescent tube. Katzir also discloses various LED array layouts that a POSITA would have a looked to when designing an LED tube lighting like that disclosed in Kit. A POSITA would have had strong motivation to look to Katzir to design an LED array to be retrofit in a fluorescent tube form factor. Ex. 1003 ¶ 102 (internal citations omitted). As discussed above, however, the cited passages of Kit describe a light with LEDs that produces a single, consistent temperature of warm white, commercial white, or cool white. Ex. 1004, 3:28–36, 22:9–25. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Holmes sufficiently explains why a POSITA would have modified Kit to include Katzir’s particular layout that includes both cool white LEDs and warm white LEDs. See Pet. 19, 24; Ex. 1003 ¶ 102; In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (instructing that we must articulate a reason why a POSITA would combine the prior art references). We identified the aforementioned deficiencies for this asserted challenge in the Decision on Institution. DI 21–23. Petitioner did not address those deficiencies in the Reply. See generally Reply; Tr. 6:16–7:10. Thus, based on the entire record developed at trial, and for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kit, Ianiro, Ducharme, and Katzir.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Petitioner asserts that Mr. Holmes cited Hasnain’s heat dissipation techniques. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 490; Ex. 1049 ¶¶ 41–49). Paragraph 490 of Exhibit 1003 relates to Ducharme, not Hasnain, and thus, does not support Petitioner’s argument. Although paragraphs 41 to 49 of Exhibit 1049 span more than seven pages, other than the single citation in the Reply, Petitioner does not discuss any of the testimony presented therein. We, thus, do not consider this portion of the Holmes Supplemental Declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3). Furthermore, we would not be persuaded by Mr. Holmes’ testimony even if we considered it. For example, Mr. Holmes testifies that Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure “a variety of heat dissipating techniques are disclosed by Hasnain, any one of which could readily be used in a T12 form factor LED light, as expressly recognized by Hasnain.” Ex. 1049 ¶ 46. We disagree with Mr. Holmes that Hasnain teaches enclosing its heat-dissipating structure in a fluorescent light tube. Hasnain teaches “a replacement LED light source for fluorescent tube 22 [that] plug[s] into the same connectors and operate[s] from the voltage patterns generated by the ballasts.” Ex. 1008, 3:23–26. Hasnain also teaches that “the replacement LED light source has a plurality of LEDs mounted on a heat-dissipating substrate that has a width that is less than or equal to the diameter of the fluorescent tube that the light source is designed to replace.” Id. at 5:52–56. Thus, Hasnain teaches that its LED light fits into, and connects with, an existing structure that previously held a fluorescent light tube. Id. at 2:50–56, 3:23–26, 4:58–64, 5:52–56, Figs. 1A, 4. As discussed above, however, Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure is not enclosed in a tubular housing in order to dissipate heat to the surrounding air or via thermal contact with the existing structure that a fluorescent light tube is inserted into. Id. at 2:50–56, 4:23–28, 4:51–64, Figs. 1A, 3, 4.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,566,895 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,566,895 - Quasar Science LLC v. Colt International Clothing, Inc. D/B/A Colt LedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00613 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6–14, 16–19, 21–24, and 26–31 were not shown unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner does not identify any specific instance in which the differences between the parties’ respective descriptions of the level of ordinary skill in the art impacts the analysis or conclusions of either party, or either party’s declarant, in this case. See id. In fact, Patent Owner acknowledges that any differences between the parties’ respective descriptions do not impact the conclusions in this case. Id. at 9 (“Regardless of which definition . . . is applied, the conclusion(s) would be the same.”). Therefore, to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s description, which is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Fred Holmes, and is consistent with the asserted prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 32.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 10. We determine that no claim terms require an express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See Sections II.D.1, II.E.1.” slip op. at 8
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, Petitioner’s assertion that Hasnain’s LED light emits at least 1000 lumens requires distributing LEDs on a heat-dissipating structure that transfers heat to the surrounding air or via thermal contact with another existing structure. Id. at 4:23–28, 4:51–5:6, Figs. 3, 4; see Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 49, 5 Figure 4 shows heat-dissipating structure 59, not heat-dissipating structure 47. Ex. 1008, Fig. 4. But Hasnain describes those structures similarly. Id. at 4:51–5:6. 66. Petitioner, though, does not explain how Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure would work when combined with Ducharme’s tubular housing. See Pet. 62–63; Pet. Reply 10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 490; Ex. 1049 ¶¶ 41–49. In particular, Petitioner does not explain how Hasnain’s heat- dissipating structure would dissipate sufficient heat to the surrounding air when enclosed in Ducharme’s tubular housing. See id. Petitioner also does not explain how Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure would dissipate sufficient heat via thermal contact with another existing structure when enclosed in Ducharme’s tubular housing. See id. Furthermore, Petitioner does not propose combining Ducharme and Hasnain so that Hasnain’s heatdissipating structure is in thermal contact with Ducharme’s tubular housing. See id. Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently how the proposed combination of Ducharme and Hasnain was supposed to work. See Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he Board nowhere clearly explained, or cited evidence showing, how the combination of the two references was supposed to work.”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to achieve high lumen output, we determine that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the specific cited teachings of Ducharme and Hasnain.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,411,582 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,411,582 - Teladoc Health, Inc. v. Data Health Partners, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00618 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted obviousness combinations teach compiling provider data without client input to generate a score.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged claims, as of the earliest claimed priority date, “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a healthcare field as well as 1–2 years of experience with health information technology, including specific experience with computer-based systems for recording, tracking, and analyzing patient health information.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 36). At this time, Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 2. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation for a person of ordinary skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’812 patent.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We finally consider the disputed limitation “without input from the clients.” Petitioner argues that data inputted by a provider, and not the client, “is without input” from the client. See Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 141). Patent Owner distinguishes between entered data and compiled data. See Prelim. Resp. 19–20 (“[T]he element in claim 16 does not require data entry without input from the patients. Instead, . . . claim 16 recites that ‘instructions are executed by the processor to: . . . compile data’”). Patent Owner thus argues that the negative limitation “without” excludes client input from the compiled data to generate a score, not the entered data as a whole. See id. In other words, both providers and clients may input data, but the score is generated from data collected from the providers, not the clients. We agree with Patent Owner’s position—that the compiled data used to generate a score includes client data received from the providers and excludes (is without) input from the clients—as consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim limitation. This reading gives meaning to the express limitation “without input from the clients.” See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“the use of a term within the claim [may provide] a firm basis for construing the term”). We next consider whether this interpretation is consistent with the intrinsic evidence.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). slip op. at 6
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In sum, none of Petitioner’s citations to Douglas appear to address compiling data without input from the client to generate a score. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bergeron, does not provide any further explanation of why one of ordinary skill in the art would compile data without input from the client to generate a score, nor a reason to modify Douglas to do so. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 141–142, 90–91. Instead, Dr. Bergeron merely provides the conclusion mirrored in the Petition. See Ex. 1012 ¶ 141. Finally, Petitioner does not rely on Klotsche, Virginia, or Wager for the disputed limitation “without input from the client.” See Pet. 32 (discussing Klotsche), 33 (discussing Virginia), and 58–59 (discussing Wager). Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not established that the asserted art teaches or suggests all of the claim elements and limitations of claim 16. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 16, and dependent claim 17, would have been obvious over Douglas, Klotsche, and Virginia or Douglas, Klotsche, Virginia, and Wager.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,061,812 - Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Hoffman-La Roche AG, And Abbvie Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00052 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–4, 8–14, and 18–26 not shown unpatentable because they were entitled to priority before the November 2018 Venclexta Label, which therefore was not prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“We do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner did not expressly recite hematological malignancies, Petitioner did refer to expertise in clinical oncology, which would encompass the blood cancers recited in the claims. Neither party identifies a difference in the analysis or conclusions that would be based on differences in the ordinary skill in the art analysis. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties do not identify any issue relating to the preamble that would impact our analysis. We recognize that Patent Owner is suggesting that Petitioner’s expert, at least, is reading the word “clinical” into the treatment language of claim 1. However, the plain language of the claim 1 preamble states “treating lymphoma or leukemia in a human patient” and is supported by a straightforward definition in the Specification of the ’087 patent, expressly limiting the invention to treatment of human patients. See Ex. 1001, 16:25–38. We therefore find that the preamble terms do not need claim construction because there is no actual dispute suggesting that, for example, claim 1 implicitly recites the term “clinical.” See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“d. Analysis Considering the Wands factors as a whole, we find that the limited breadth of the claims, presence of several working examples, significant amount of direction and guidance provided by the ’087 patent, predictability in treating blood cancers with Bcl-2 inhibitors like GDC-0199, and high level of skill in the art are balanced against a large quantity of experimentation. Based on our consideration of the entirety of the evidence, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that undue experimentation would not have been required to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with the claims of the ’087 patent. One underlying theme of Petitioner’s contentions and Petitioner’s expert testimony is the repeated contention that clinical trials were not completed by Patent Owner. See, e.g., Pet. 48 (“venetoclax (GDC-0199) was not FDA-approved”); Ex. 1020 ¶ 193. We find these arguments unpersuasive as we agree with Patent Owner that “[i]t is well established that a patent may be secured, and typically is secured, before the conclusion of clinical trials.” In re Montgomery, 67 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Particularly as to the dependent claims, a preponderance of the evidence of record does not support a finding that undue experimentation would have been required to administer three different doses of GDC-0199 starting with 100 mg, to use multiple daily dosing cycles of one day, to continue until disease progression occurs, or to combine with other treatment compounds. We find that a preponderance of the evidence does not support Petitioner’s position that any of the dependent claims fail to comply with the enablement requirement.” slip op. at 23
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Applying Rai and Wertheim to the instant facts, we agree with Patent Owner that, factually and legally, in the ’087 patent “the claimed dosages of 100 mg, 200 mg, and/or 400 mg of GDC-0199 are adequately supported.” PO Second Suppl. Brief 2 (citing PO Resp. 11, 27–29; PO Sur-reply 19, 21– 22; Ex. 1001, 24:20–29.) In particular, the ’087 patent describes all three specific dosage values 100 mg, 200 mg, and 400 mg in the context of an escalating drug dosage series and Petitioner points to no persuasive statements in the specification that dispute either the effectiveness or the operability of GDC-0199 at any of these dosages.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 11,110,087 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,110,087 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · IPR2023-01462 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–26 were unpatentable, finding the asserted combinations did not teach blocking an Internet service access request.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15– 17). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Kevin Butler. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15–17. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description, which is consistent with the ’445 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction A claim “shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). At this stage of the proceeding, neither party presents any claim terms for construction. Pet. 2– 3; Prelim. Resp. 4. Based on the present record, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this time. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374 (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 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that its system can “classify[] and/or control[] network access requests (e.g., IP address requests).” Ex. 1001, 11:27–32 (emphasis added). In particular, the ’455 patent describes an example where “before a connection is allowed to be opened . . . it is blocked and a message is sent back to the application . . . that the network access attempt was not allowed/blocked.” Id. at 91:41– 49 (emphasis added). In contrast, the ’455 patent explains that its system also can “classify[] and/or control[] . . . network capacity/resources usage (e.g., bandwidth usage).” Id. at 11:27–32. For example, a “socket can be allowed to open but after some point in time (e.g., based on network service usage . . . ), the stream is blocked or the socket is terminated.” Id. at 91:49– 54. In other words, the ’455 patent distinguishes between 1) blocking an Internet service access request before a connection is open; and 2) blocking a network stream after a connection is open. Id. at 11:27–32, 91:41–54.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,277,445 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · IPR2023-01361 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Samsung did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–6, 10–20 would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15– 17). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Kevin Butler. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15–17. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. Prelim. Resp. 4. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 2–3; Prelim. Resp. 4. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Here, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Thus, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“allowed to open but after some point in time (e.g., based on network service usage . . . ), the stream is blocked or the socket is terminated.” Id. at 91:49– 54. In other words, the ’184 patent distinguishes between 1) blocking an Internet service access request before a connection is open; and 2) blocking a network stream after a connection is open. Id. at 11:27–32, 91:41–54; see also id. at 106:39–43 (distinguishing between an “Internet service access request” and “network activity”). On this record, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that the combination of Rao, Oestvall, and Freund teaches blocking an Internet service access request. First, Petitioner asserts that Rao’s applications “communicat[e] over the Internet and receiv[e] service from servers,” and thus a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood or found it obvious that Rao’s applications would be configured to send packetized communications over the Internet to such servers requesting access to their corresponding services (an Internet service access request).” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 107–108; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 90, 179, 184). Even if Petitioner is correct that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that Rao’s applications send an Internet service access request, that alone does not show that Rao also teaches blocking the Internet service access request. See id.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,271,184 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2024 · IPR2023-01253 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 were unpatentable; the asserted art did not teach or suggest indicating network access conditions to the application.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“obvious because “Rao’s device can run the Java operating system” and a skilled artisan “would have understood and found obvious that the application would have received an indication, via the Java sockets API, of the network access condition.” Pet. 29. We disagree. Although Rao mentions Java as one in a long list of example operating systems (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 128 ), Petitioner’s argument is insufficient because it does not explain why using Java necessarily means applications will receive the specific indication claimed—one that notifies an application of network access conditions. Likewise, Petitioner offers no reason why one skilled in the art using Petitioner’s asserted combination of Rao and Oestvall would have been motivated to do so. See id. Absent such an explanation, Petitioner’s argument amounts to no more than asserting that Rao teaches using Java and that Java sockets were known. Petitioner’s argument lacks known and why employing that notification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (noting that “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2 at least two years of industry experience in services and application implementation in communication networks,” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 17; see Pet. 11 n.3. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. On this record, we agree with Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 2–3; Prelim. Resp. 8. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,143,976 - PTAB · Dec 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00896 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7 and 12–15 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s argument and evidence is too general to establish obviousness. See 37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2) (Petitioner must include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts”). Petitioner cites to forty-four paragraphs of the Pratt Declaration, but does not explain how any of those paragraphs support its statement in the Petition. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–112, 140–144, 35–40, 63–85); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (“The Board may exclude or give no weight to evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.”). STP2003 is directed to an alarm with non-replaceable batteries that can be activated and deactivated. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 6. However, there is no disclosure of how the function is accomplished. Specifically, Petitioner does not identify any portion of STP2003 that teaches cooperating features on the first portion and the second portion configured to automatically activate the second portion upon initial attachment of the second portion to the first portion. See Pet. 13–14. None of the evidence cited by Petitioner, including the background of the ’158 patent, Watson, nor the Reinholtz Deposition, remedy this deficiency. In particular, Petitioner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood STP2003’s activation means to include the recited cooperating features. See id. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown all limitations of claim 1 would have been obvious over STP2003.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art as of “August 2003 had a Bachelor’s Degree in mechanical engineering or similar discipline.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 31). In addition, the person of ordinary skill “would have had knowledge of design considerations in the industry and would have been familiar with then-existing electro-mechanical products and solutions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 31). Patent Owner “does not dispute” Petitioner’s proposal and does not propose a different level of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 8. 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-129, 125 Stat. 284, 285–288 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Because the challenged patent was filed prior to March 16, 2013, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the statute. The findings and analysis in this Decision would be the same under the AIA version. the art reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“The District Court in the Texas Litigation issued a “Claim Construction Order” (“Markman Order”) on February 15, 2023. Ex. 1019. With some qualifiers not relevant here, the Markman Order applied the plain and ordinary meaning to all claim terms. Id. Petitioner cites the Markman Order and, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding,” applies the plain and ordinary meaning for all claim terms. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1019; Ex. 10203). Patent Owner also cites to the Markman Order and agrees with application of the plain and ordinary meaning to all claim terms. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 1019; Ex. 20044). 3 Texas Litigation “Joint Claim Construction Statement.” 4 Texas Litigation “Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief.” “an activating/deactivating system” and “activate/deactivate system” terms are means plus function limitations because, regardless of their construction, Petitioner fails to show that any reference discloses the same or an equivalent structure. On the record before us, we construe all claim terms to have their plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner fails to explain why Malewski’s mating-based activation embodiments would be combined with the activation key-based embodiment and how such a combination would satisfy both limitations of the same device. See Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC, IPR2017-01204, Paper 9 at 8–12 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2017) (denying institution where no explanation provided for how different embodiments of a reference were interchangeable or why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found it obvious to combine their respective teachings). Prelim. Resp. 23. We agree with Patent Owner that the record fails to support sufficient reasoning as to why the various embodiments of Malewski would have been combined to meet the Limitations [1c] and [1d]. We have reviewed paragraphs 190 through 200, which is the testimony of Dr. Pratt regarding the two limitations. None of it provides any reasoning as to why Malewski’s separate embodiments would have been combined to show either limitation.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,123,158
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.